ABSTRACT  OF  THE  ARGUMENT, 

P 

IN  THE  .yU'*' 

T 


rUBLIC  DISCUSSION  OF  THE  QUESTION: 


**  ARE  THE  CHRISTIANS  OF  A GIVEN  COMMUNITY  THE  CHURCH  OF 
SUCH  COMMUNITY  ?” 


MADE  BY 

G ERR  IT  SMITH, 


HAMILTON,  N.  Y. 

April  12th,  13th,  14th,  1847. 

ALBANY : 

S.  W.  GREEN,  PATRIOT 

1847* 


OFFICE. 


Entered  according  to  the  act  of  Congress,  in  the  year  1847,  by 
S.  W.  Green, 

in  the  Clerk’s  office  of  the  Northern  District  of  New- York. 


ARGUMENT. 


The  question,  said  Mr.  Smith,  refers  to  a local  church  : — not 
to  what  men  may  mean  by  a local  church ; but  to  what  God 
means  by  it; — to  what  his  inspired  apostle  meant  by  it,  when 
he  wrote  to  the  church  of  Rome,  or  of  Corinth,  or  to  some 
other  church. 

A sectarian,  or  man-selected  church,  said  Mr.  Smith,  is,  as 
a general  fact,  made  up,  in  p$irt,  of  the  regenerate,  and,  in 
part,  of  the  unregenerate  persons  of  the  place,  where  it  exists. 
But,  he  would  attempt  to  prove,  that  a local  church  is,  in  the  eye 
of  God  and  the  Bible,  made  up  of  all  the  regenerate  persons  in 
the  given  locality  and  of  no  others.  Passing  over,  for  the  pre- 
sent moment,  the  assumption,  that  they,  who  are  not  Christians 
can  belong  to  a church  of  Christ;  he  would  ask,  whether  it  is 
possible,  that  any  Christian,  however  weak  or  erring,  who  lives 
within  the  territorial  limits  of  a God- made  and  God-approved 
local  church,  is,  in  the  eye  of  God,  left  out  of  it?  What  an- 
swer does  the  Bible  give  to  this  question? 

All  the  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ,  even  the  most  weak  and 
erring,  are  inexpressibly  dear  to  his  great,  and  generous,  and 
loving  heart.  Again,  they  all  need,  vitally  need,  the  instruc- 
tions, supports,  comforts,  means  of  increase  in  holiness,  hap- 
piness, and  usefulness,  which  the  Saviour,  at  the  cost  of  his 
blood,  has,  so  freely  and  so  fully,  provided  in  the  local  church. 
And  the  most  weak  and  erring  need  them  most.  Now,  in  the 
light  of  these  facts,  what  answer  should  we  naturally  expect 
the  Bible  to  give  to  this  question  ? Most  assuredly,  the  answer, 
that,  wherever  there  is  a local  church,  every  Christian  there 
belongs  to  it;  and  has  right  to  its  nourishment  and  to  its  helps 


4 


for  growing  in  grace; — a right  too,  not  partial,  neither  condi- 
tioned on  his  doing  certain  things;  but  a right,  full  and  abso- 
lute, simply  in  virtue  of  his  being  a Christian.  I add,  that 
what  we  should  so  naturally  expect  the  Bible  to  prove  on  this 
point,  it  does  prove.  And,  now,  let  us  look  into  the  Bible  for 
such  proof.  But,  ere  doing  so,  let  me  ask,  whether  we  dare 
look  into  it  for  proof  to  the  contrary  ? We  dare  not  look  into 
it  for  justifications  of  slavery,  or  of  the  drinking  of  intoxicat- 
ing liquors.  Why  then,  dare  we  look  into  it  for  justifications 
of  sectarianism? — for  justifications  to  divide  Christians  into 
sects,  and  to  confine  our  sympathies,  as  church  members , to  a 
part  of  the  Christian  brotherhood  ? Is  not  the  attempt,  in  this 
case,  to  make  the  Bible  the  minister  of  sin  quite  as  guilty — 
quite  as  blasphemous  as  in  the  others  ? 

But,  to  the  Bible  proof,  thajt  a local  church  comprises  all  the 
Christians  within  its  territorial  limits. 

The  Bible  speaks  of  a mystical  body,  and  of  Jesus  Christ,  as 
its  head.  Who  are  its  members  ? Christians;  none  but  Chris- 
tians ; and  all  Christians.  There  is  not  a Christian  on  earth, 
who  is  not  a member  of  it.  But  the  Bible  repeatedly  calls  this 
body  the  church.  Hence,  if  what  we  have  said  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the  body  be  true  ; the  church  includes  all  Christians. 

Rom.  xii.  5— Eph.  i.  22,  23— iv.  15,  16— v.  23,  30— Col. 
i.  18,  24— 1st  Cor.  x.  17— xii.  12,  &c.,  teach,  that  Christians, 
church,  body,  have  the  same  meaning. 

The  figure  of  the  spiritual  house  in  1st  Pet.  ii.  4,  5,  and  in 
the  close  of  2d  chap,  of  Eph.,  and  the  figure  of  the  vine  and 
branches  in  John  xv.,  and  the  figure  of  the  bride  and  bride- 
groom in  Rev.  xxi.  2 — Isaiah  liv.  5 — lxii.  5 — Psalm  xlv. — Rom. 
vii.  4 — all  teach  what  is  taught  by  the  figure  of  the  body. 

Also  in  Heb.  xii.  22,  23,  we  are  taught,  that  the  church 
universal  is  composed  of  all  Christians. 

But,  if  the  church  universal  be  composed  of  all  Christians, 
how  reasonable,  nay  how  irresistible,  is  the  inference,  that  a 
local  church  is  composed  of  all  the  Christians  within  its  territo- 
ry?— and  that  it  differs  from  the  church  universal,  only  as  a 
part  differs  from  the  whole?  Thanks,  however,  to  the  Bible 
and  to  the  God  of  the  Bible,  we  are  not  left  to  mere  inference, 
in  this  important  matter.  There  are  many  passages  of  the  Bible, 


5 


which  teach,  by  express  declaration,  that  a local  church  in- 
cludes all  the  Christians  within  its  territory,  and  none  else.  I 
will  quote  some  of  them.  Rom.  i.  7 — 1st  Cor.  i.  2— Eph. 
j,  1 — Phil.  i.  1,  connected  with  iv.  15  — Col.  i.  2.  See, 
also,  Acts  xx.  28,  and  1st  Pet.  v.  2.  His  Lord  had  told  Peter 
to  feed  the  flock — the  lambs,  as  well  as  the  sheep — the  weak, 
as  well  as  the  strong.  How  natural  then  to  suppose,  that, 
when  Peter  charged  the  elders  to  feed  that  part  of  the  flock 
under  their  care,  he  meant  the  lambs,  as  well  as  the  sheep — 
the  weak,  as  well  as  the  strong:  and  that,  in  correspondence 
with  his  Lord’s  instructions  to  himself,  the  flock,  of  which  he 
spoke  to  the  elders,  included  none  but  sheep  and  lambs. 

In  addition  to  these  testimonies,  we  have  the  Saviour’s  own 
definition  of  a local  church  in  Mat.  xviii.  20.  He  here  teaches, 
that  two  or  three,  gathered  together  in  his  name,  constitute  a 
church.  We  learn,  also,  from  the  18th  and  19th  verses  of  this 
chapter,  that  a church  has  none  the  less  power  conferred  upon 
it,  because  it  is  small.  By  the  way,  the  19th  verse  of  this 
chapter  is  a perfect  key  to  the  meaning  of  the  19th  verse  of  the 
16th  chapter  of  the  same  gospel.  Only  interpret  the  latter  in 
the  light  of  the  former ; and  all  is  plain.  In  the  former,  the 
power  in  question  is  clearly  given  to  the  church.  Now,  the 
true  meaning  of  the  one  verse  cannot  conflict  with  that  of  the 
other : and,  hence,  the  Roman  Catholic  claim  for  Peter  is 
groundless.  I believe,  that  “ thee  ” in  Mat.  xvi.  19  refers  to 
the  church — and  that  the  Saviour  addressed  Peter,  not  so  much 
as  the  representative  of  the  church,  as  in  apposition  with  it. 
Nothing  is  more  natural,  or  common,  than  thus  to  address  an 
individual  for  a multitude — than  thus  to  make  an  individual 
stand  for  a multitude.  To  illustrate — you  are  interested  in  the 
project  of  a plank  road  to  run  northwardly  through  your  vil- 
lage. We  will  suppose,  that  Rome,  as  well  as  Utica,  is  spoken 
of,  as  the  point  of  its  northern  termination.  You  see  your  old 
and  esteemed  neighbor,  Judge  Gridley  of  Utica,  and  say  to 
him,  “ Judge,  we  don’t  know,  that  we  shall  let  you  have  the 
plank  road.”  You  also  see  Mr.  Foster  of  Rome,  and  say  to 
him,  “ We  think  we  shall  let  you  have  the  plank  road.”  In 
the  one  address,  “ you  ” obviously  means  “ Utica,”  and,  in 
the  other,  “Rome.”  I would  add,  that  the  “rock”  referred 


6 


to  is,  in  my  judgment,  the  confession,  that  Jesus  is  “ the 
Christ — the  Son  of  the  living  God.”  Bear  in  mind,  that,  al- 
though “Peter”  means  “rock”  in  the  original;  the  word 
here  translated  “ rock  ” is  not  only  another  word,  but  of  an- 
other (feminine)  gender. 

But,  to  return  from  this  digression — the  Bible  teaches,  not 
only,  that  the  Christians  of  Rome  and  Corinth  composed  the 
churches  in  those  places;  but  that  the  Christians  of  a single 
family  (or,  if  not  so,  that  the  handful  of  Christians  accustomed 
to  meet  together  in  a private  house,)  composed  a church.  See 
Rom.  xvi.  5 — 1st  Cor.  xvi.  19 — Col.  iv.  15 — Philemon  2. 

I referred  to  figures  of  the  Bible,  which  prove,  that  all  Chris- 
tians belong  to  the  church.  These  figures  denote  the  intimacy 
and  indissolubleness  of  the  union  of  the  disciples  of  Christ  with 
himself.  This  union  is  as  essential,  as  that  of  the  body  with 
the  head  ; of  the  branches  with  the  vine ; of  the  other  stones 
of  a house  with  the  corner  stone.  It  follows,  that  no  less  close 
is  the  union  of  the  Saviour’s  disciples  with  each  other.  If  in- 
dividuals are  each  bound  up  in  Christ,  then  are  they  also  bound 
up  in  each  other.  If,  in  Bible  language,  they  “ are  members 
of  his  body,  of  his  flesh,  and  of  his  bones ;”  then,  in  Bible 
language,  they  are  also  “members  one  of  another.”  How 
decidedly,  in  1st  Cor.  xii.  25,  26,  does  Paul  speak  against 
“ schism  ! ” — and  how  touching^  of  those  sympathies,  which, 
with  electric  swiftness,  fly  from  one  Christian  heart  to  another  ! 
One  Christian  may  be  regarded  as  one  of  the  arms  of  the  Sa- 
viour’s mystical  body,  and  another  Christian  as  the  other.  Can 
these  arms  refuse  to  acknowledge  each  other  1 Not  while  the 
life-blood  of  the  same  divine  heart  courses  through  both  ; — 
not  while  the  same  divine  head  directs  both.  The  making  of 
war  by  one  member  of  the  mystical  body  upon  another,  is  a 
greater  and  more  abhorrent  absurdity,  than  the  making  of  war 
by  one  member  of  the  natural  body  upon  another. 

Surely,  a relation,  so  endearing,  so  tender,  as  that  between 
the  members  of  the  Saviour’s  mystical  body;  as  that  between 
the  members  of  his  church  ; — surely,  a union,  so  intimate,  so 
sacred,  and  cemented  by  a love  so  divine — can  never  be  broken. 
It  must  be  ever-during,  ever  strong.  However  else,  and 
wherever  else,  Christians  may  differ,  they,  at  least,  constitute 


7 


one  church.  There,  they  arc  brought  together,  and  kept  to- 
gether. There,  they  are  one.  The  church  is  the  very  place 
• — the  place  above  all  others — where  Christians  must  feel,  that 
they  are  to  be  brought  together,  and  to  be  kept  together.  That 
they  should  refuse  mutual  union  at  a point,  so  significant,  so 
vital,  is  as  absurd  and  as  monstrous,  as  for  the  feet  and  the 
hands  to  quarrel  with  each  other,  or  with  the  head. 

But,  why  have  I spent  so  much  time  to  prove,  that  all  Chris- 
tians are  to  be  recognized,  as  belonging  to  the  church  ; and 
that  to  attempt  to  cast  any  of  them  out  is  a great  sin  both 
against  them  and  their  Saviour  1 Christ  and  Christians  are  one. 
To  cast  them  out  of  his  church  is  to  cast  him  out  of  liis  own 
church.  For  proof  of  this  oneness,  see,  in  addition  to  the 
scriptures  already  quoted,  John  xvii.  21,  and  1st  Cor.  vi.  15. 
See,  also,  the  close  of  the  25th  chap,  of  Mat.  for  proof  of  the 
Saviour’s  gracious  and  condescending  identification  of  himself 
with  even  the  least  ones. 

The  Saviour  teaches,  in  Mark  iii.  23,  that  it  is  God,  who 
casts  out  devils.  Who,  then,  casts  out  Christ'?  It  must  be 
Satan.  And,  when  we  are  casting  out  Christ,  we  are  doing 
Satan’s  work — the  work  of  the  under — not  of  the  upper  world. 

I need  say  no  more  to  prove,  that  the  Christians  on  the  earth 
compose  the  church  on  the  earth  ; and  that  the  church  of  a 
given  locality  comprises  the  Christians  of  such  locality.  We 
will  now  look  at  what  is  relied  on  to  disprove  these  positions. 
What,  however,  can  be  said,  in  the  face  of  the  great  amount 
of  inferential  and  direct  proofs,  which  have  now  been  brought 
to  sustain  these  positions  ? It  would  seem,  that  to  question  those 
proofs  is,  well  nigh,  to  question  whether  the  Bible  proves  any 
thing.  Nevertheless,  we  proceed  to  examine  the  passages  of 
scripture  on  which  sectarians  depend  for  showing,  that  unre- 
generate persons  can  be  in  the  church  of  Christ,  and  regenerate 
persons  can  be  out  of  it. 

1st.  It  is  contended,  that  the  parable  of  the  tares  and  the 
parable  of  the  fish  in  13th  chap,  of  Mat.,  and  also  that  of  the 
virgins  in  the  25th  chap,  of  Mat.,  teach,  that  the  church  is 
made  up  both  of  the  righteous  and  the  wicked.  But,  in  the 
case  of  the  parable  of  the  tares,  the  Saviour  expressly  says : 
* The  field  is  the  world  and  it  would  be  doing  the  greatest 


8 


violence  to  analogy  to  suppose,  that,  in  the  case  of  the  other 
parables,  the  scene  is  laid  in  the  church,  instead  of  the  world. 

The  parables  of  the  tares  and  fish  are  employed,  as  I sup- 
pose, to  illustrate  the  endeavors  to  bring  souls  into  the  king- 
dom of  heaven — into  a state  of  salvation.  The  net  and  the 
sickle  gather  what  is  worthless  along  with  that,  which  is  good. 
So  too,  what  is  gathered  under  the  preaching  and  influences  of 
the  gospel  is  not  all  precious.  Much  of  it  is  vile.  u Many  are 
called;  but  few  are  chosen.”  Many  seem  to  come  into  the 
kingdom  ; but  do  not. 

2d.  It  is  also  contended,  thdt  the  parable  of  the  vine  and 
branches  in  John  xv.,  teaches,  that  wicked  persons  are  in 
the  church.  In  the  case  of  the  stony  and  thorny  ground  hearers 
there  is  a seeming,  but  only  a seeming  growth  in  grace.  So 
too,  in  the  case  before  us.  The  fruitless  branches  but  seem  to 
be  in  the  vine.  That  they  are  not  in  it  is  a certain  inference 
from  the  4th  and  5th  verses.  If  a branch,  to  be  fruitful,  must 
be  in  the  vine,  and  will  then  not  fail  to  be  fruitful ; it  follows, 
that  a fruitless  branch  is  not  in  the  vine. 

3d.  It  is  claimed,  that  the  description  of  the  Laodicean 
church,  in  Rev.  iii.  15,  16,  proves,  that  there  may  be  wicked 
persons  in  a local  church.  But,  does  not  this  claim  impeach 
the  veracity  of  the  Holy  Spirit?  Who,  after  reading  Rev.  i, 
4,  5,  6,  9,  dares  say,  that  there  was  one  unregenerate  person 
in  the  u seven  churches?”  But,  the  Laodicean  church,  as  is 
universally  believed,  was  certainly  apostate  and  spiritually 
dead.  And  is  it  of  men,  sunk  in  apostacy  and  dead  in  tres- 
passes and  sins,  that  the  Saviour  can  say : u they  are  neither 
c cold  nor  hot ? in  religion?”  Are  not  such  men  all  absolutely 
cold  in  religion?  But,  what  means,  it  will  be  triumphantly 
inquired,  his  threat  to  spew  them  out  of  his  mouth  ? I con- 
fess, that  I do  not  certainly  know.  My  conjecture  of  its  mean- 
ing is,  that  for  his  disciples  to  become,  in  a great  measure,  in- 
different to  his  truth  and  his  cause,  is  as  loathsome  to  his  soul, 
as  a lukewarm  liquid  is  to  the  palate  of  him,  who  drinks  it.  I 
confess  my  ignorance.  But,  no  man  should  suffer  his  ignorance 
to  control  his  knowledge.  I must  not  surrender  to  my  igno- 
rance of  the  meaning  of  a part  of  the  description  of  the  cha- 
racter of  the  Laodicean  church  the  certain  knowledge  of  that 


character,  which  I have  derived  from  other  parts  of  the  des- 
scription.  This  church  was  guilty,  not  of  abandoning  the 
cause  of  Jesus  Christ ; but,  as  we  learn  by  the  19th  verse,  of 
losing  its  zeal  in  that  cause.  That  its  members  were  Christians, 
has  already  been  proved.  Cumulative  proof  to  this  end  may, 
however,  be  derived  from  the  same  verse  : u As  many  as  I love 
I rebuke  and  chasten.5 5 Neither  this  language  nor  the  like 
language  in  12th  chap,  of  Hebrews  can  be  applied  to  the  un- 
regenerate. 

4th.  The  3d  Epistle  of  John  is  relied  on  to  prove,  that  there 
were  bad  men  in  the  New  Testament  churches  ; and  that  good 
men  were  cast  out  of  them. 

That  Diotrephes  was  a bad  man  I admit.  That  he  had  been, 
and  was,  even  now,  by  some  persons,  regarded  as  a Christian, 
and,  therefore,  a member  of  the  church,  is  highly  probable. 
But,  that  he  was  a member  of  it,  I deny.  Paul  says,  Acts 
xx.  29,  tc  For  I know  this,  that,  after  my  departing,  shall 
grievous  wolves  enter  in  among  you,  not  sparing  the  flock.55 
Would  you  claim  that  these  grievous  wolves  were  of  c£  the 
flock?55  They  were  but  among  it.  So  was  Diotrephes  but 
among  the  members  of  the  local  church,  of  which  he  claimed 
to  be  a member.  The  same  apostle,  who  writes  of  Diotrephes, 
informs  us,  in  his  1st  Epistle,  ii.  18,  19,  that  there  were 
“ many,55  who  had  been  reckoned  as  belonging  to  the  church, 
who  were  <£  not  of55  it:  and  that  their  open  apostacy  was  to 
prove,  that  supposed  members  of  the  church  were  ££  not  all 55 
of  it. 

Did  Diotrephes  cast  out  from  the  church? — good  persons? — 
for,  if  he  cast  out  any,  they  were  good  persons ; since  we  have 
proved,  that  such  a thing,  as  a wicked  person,  in  God’s  uni- 
versal church,  or  God’s  local  churches,  there  is  not.  I would 
here  say,  that,  even  if  he  did  cast  out  good  persons,  it  be- 
comes sectarians  to  be  sparing  of  their  reproaches  : — for  why 
should  they  reproach  him  for  doing  that,  which  they  justify  in 
themselves  ? Where  is  the  sectarian  (and  by  this  name  I mean 
nothing  more  offensive  than  to  designate  those,  who  believe  it 
right  to  withdraw  themselves  from  the  universal  Christian  bro- 
therhood, and  form  sects,)  I say  where  is  the  sectarian,  who 
would  not,  in  certain  cases,  consent  to  have  the  confessedly 


10 


best  member  of  his  church  hurled  out  of  it?  Such  a member, 
in  all  the  sincerity  of  his  devoutly  pious  heart,  has  come  to 
adopt  the  Quaker  view  of  the  “ ordinances. ” He  has  come  to 
believe,  that  they  pertained  to  the  Jewish  Dispensation,  and 
expired  with  it.  cc  Ilurl  him  out,”  would  be  the  sentence  of 
every  consistent  Baptist  and  Presbyterian  : — and  this  too,  not- 
withstanding the  sentence  would  be  in  the  very  face  of  the  Sa- 
viour’s perfectly  plain  teaching,  that  the  person  we  exclude 
from  our  church  fellowship,  must,  in  our  eyes,  be  as  utterly 
destitute  66  as  a heathen  man  and  a publican  ” of  all  claims  to 
Christian  character. 

But  did  Diotrephes  cast  persons  out  of  the  church?  And 
will  they,  who  believe  in  the  congregational  polity — will  the 
Baptists,  for  instance,  who  take  so  much  complacency  in  the 
democracy  of  their  ecclesiastical  arrangements,  and  who  claim, 
that  these  arrangements  are  after  the  pattern  of  the  apostolic 
churches — will  they  admit,  that,  even  in  the  time  and  pre- 
sence of  the  apostles,  the  government  of  a church  could  de- 
generate into  a monarchy — into  a mere  autocracy?  But  this 
they  must  admit,  if  they  allow,  that  Diotrephes  had  power  to 
cast  persons  out  of  the  church. 

I am  opposed',  not  only  to  sectarianism,  but  to  every  form  of 
ecclesiastical  government,  except  that,  which  is  purely  congre- 
gational and  democratic : — for,  I believe,  that  nothing  else  is 
so  democratic  as  Christianity.  Hence,  I experience  a two  fold 
pleasure  in  substituting  cc  assembly  ” or  u congregation  ” or 
“ meeting,”  for  the  word  u church,”  in  the  10th  verse.  Such 
substitution  relieves  both  Congregationalism  and  anti-sectarian- 
ism of  all  the  difficulties,  which  the  universal  reading  of  this 
epistle  clusters  upon  them.  That  these  meanings  of  the  origi- 
nal word  are  as  fully  authorized,  and  as  well  settled,  as  the 
other  meaning,  every  Greek  scholar  knows  : and  that  the  trans- 
lation, which  I have  preferred  for  it  in  this  case  harmonizes  with 
the  context,  with  common  sense,  with  the  teachings  of  the 
New  Testament,  and  with  the  genius  of  Christianity,  every  per- 
son, who  does  not  look  through  the  spectacles  of  sectarianism, 
or  Roman  Catholic  or  Protestant  popery,  must,  in  my  humble 
opinion,  readily  see.  I add,  that  it  was,  probably,  the  mis- 
sionary brethren,  instead  of  the  members  of  the  church,  whom 


11 


the  tyrannical  Diotrephes  had  the  influence  to  have  ejected  from 
the  assembly.  For  the  information  of  such,  as  are  ignorant  of 
Greek,  I would  remark,  that  the  Greek  word  translated  u as- 
sembly ” in  Acts  xix.  39  is  the  same  which  is  translated 
u church  ” in  the  present  case;  and  that  u church”  in  Heb. 
ii.  12  is  also  translated  from  the  same  word.  But.  Psalms  xxii. 
22,  and  xl.  9,  make  it  certain,  that  u church  ” in  Heb.  ii.  12, 
means  “ congregation.” 

The  sectaries  claim,  that  the  incestuous  man,  spoken  of  in 
5th  chap.  1st  Cor.,  was  a member  of  the  church.  He  was, 
however,  no  more  such  than  was  Diotrephes.  The  incestuous 
man  was  among  church  members ; but  not  of  them.  He  was 
also  “ called  a brother,”  (see  11th  verse,)  and  was  once  believ- 
ed to  be  a Christian  brother  ; but  was  no  more  such  (certainly 
not  at  that  time,)  than  was  any  other  of  the  vile  persons  refer- 
red to  in  the  verse.  That,  in  the  eye  of  divine  inspiration,  he 
was  not  of  the  Corinthian  church,  is  evident  from  1st  Cor.  vi. 
9,  10,  11. 

We  have,  now,  cleared  our  way  to  the  last  and  most  relied 
on  fortress  of  the  sects.  To  the  3d  chap,  of  2d  Thess.  they 
are  wont  to  resort  for  their  most  valued  arguments  to  prove, 
that  Christians  can  be  excluded  from  a local  church — from  a Bi- 
ble local  church.  The  universal  mis-reading  of  this  chapter  is 
no  proof,  that  wise  and  good  men  have  not  examined  it.  They 
have  examined  it — and,  that  too,  most  learnedly  and  honest- 
ly ; and  that  they  have  failed  to  unlock  its  meaning  is  only  be- 
cause they  have  not  held  in  their  hand  the  simple  anti-sectarian 
key.  Had  they,  as  they  should  have  done,  taken  up  the  chap- 
ter with  no  more  expectation  of  finding  authority  in  it  for  one 
Christian  to  disfellowship  another,  than  for  one  man  to  enslave 
another,  the  sectarian  interpretations  of  this  chapter,  if  not, 
indeed,  sectarianism  itself  also,  would,  ages  ago,  have  passed 
away. 

Before  giving  my  own  interpretation  of  this  chapter,  I would 
remark,  that  if  it  be  wrong,  and  that  if  the  persons,  from  whom 
the  u brethren  ” were  commanded  to  withdraw,  were,  indeed, 
Christians,  then  the  extent  and  nature  of  the  withdrawal  are 
to  be  judged  of  in  the  light  of  the  fact,  that  they  were  Chris- 
tians, Circumstances  may  arise,  in  which  a Christian  very  pro- 


12 


perly  comes  to  stand  in  doubt  of  the  person,  whose  piety  her 
has  hitherto  fully  admitted.  His  confidence  in  his  piety  is  now 
suspended — is  now  weakened — but  not  overthrown.  As  yet,  he 
only  suspects  him  of  conduct  incompatible  with  Christian  integ- 
rity. Nevertheless,  they  can  no  longer  take  “ sweet  counsel 
together  and  walk  to  the  house  of  God  in  company.”  The  re- 
served deportment  toward  the  suspected  one,  which  such  cir- 
cumstances call  for,  is,  however,  very  different  from  the  deport- 
ment, which  would  be  proper,  were  the  suspicion  ripened  into 
conviction.  Open  disfellowship  would,  in  the  latter  case,  be  a 
plain  duty ; but,  something  immeasurably  short  of  it,  in  the 
former. 

I proceed  to  my  interpretation  of  the  chapter. 

1st.  The  “ brethren,”  to  whom  this  epistle  was  addressed, 
were  to  withdraw  themselves  from  certain  disorderly  walkers. 

2d.  They  were  to  have  no  company  with  the  man,  who  would 
not  “ obey  our  word  by  this  epistle.” 

Now,  the  question  is:  “ Are  these  disorderly  wTalkers  and 
this  disobedient  man  a part  of  the  c brethren!’  ” — a part  of  the 
Thessalonian  church  ? I hold  that  they  are  not. 

The  Thessalonian  “ brethren,”  as  we  see  by  1st  Thess.  i. 
4 and  other  passages,  were  eminently  pure  and  holy.  This 
(see  2d  Thess.  i.  3,)  was  true  of  “ every  one  ” of  them.  But 
it  is  said,  that  the  appellation  of  “ brother  ” is  given  to  the 
disorderly  walkers.  I doubt  not  that  they  had  mingled  with 
the  “brethren;”  had  worn  the  name  of  “brother;”  and, 
though,  probably,  more  from  the  force  of  habit  than  from  mis- 
take of  their  true  and  now  developed  character,  were  still 
wearing  it.  Indeed,  the  fact,  that  they  wrere  still  wearing  it ; 
that  they  had  been  numbered  with  the  brethren  ; and  that  there 
was,  therefore,  special  need  of  vindicating  Christianity  by 
openly  protesting  against  these,  its  false  professors,  was,  doubt- 
less, among  the  most  urgent  reasons  for  the  apostolic  direction 
to  withdraw  from  them.  How  much  more  important  it  is  to 
withdraw  from  such — “ from  any  man  that  is  called  a brother” 
— than  from  those,  who  have  never  been  identified,  in  the  pub- 
lic mind,  with  Christianity,  is  evident  from  1st  Cor.  v.  9, 
10,  11. 

The  incestuous  man  was  “ called  a brother.”  So  was  the 


13 


disorderly  walker  spoken  of  in  the  chapter  under  consideration. 
But  that  did  not  make  them  Christian  brethren  any  more  than 
their  being-  called  brethren  made  the  u false  brethren,’5  of 
whom  Paul  speaks,  Christian  brethren.  The  Saviour  calls  him 
u brother,”  who,  in  the  sequel,  might  no  more  merit  the  name 
of  a Christian  brother,  than  does  u a heathen  man  and  a pub- 
lican.” Such  was  clearly  but  a nominal  Christian  brother. 

To  proceed — how  carefully  and  continually  does  inspiration 
keep  up  the  contrast  between  the  brethren  and  these  wicked 
persons,  who  had  got  among  them,  but  who  were  not  of  them  ! 
I have  already  quoted  proof  of  the  excellence  of  the  u brethren” 
— of  u every  one  ” of  them.  The  3d  and  4th  verses  of  this 
chapter  concur  with  that  proof.  The  7th  verse  appeals  to  the 
u brethren  ” in  contradistinction  from  others.  Forcibly  also, 
does  u ye  ” in  the  13th  verse  contradistinguish  the  u brethren  ” 
from  u them  ” in  the  12th  verse.  There  is  striking  disproof 
of  the  identity  of  the  disorderly  walkers  with  the  u brethren,” 
in  the  phraseology  of  the  11th  verse.  The  disorderly  persons, 
instead  of  being  of  the  u brethren,”  walked  among  them. 
Paul  does  not  say,  as  he  so  naturally  would  have  said,  had  he 
complained  of  the  cc  brethren  :”  u For  we  hear  that  some  of 
you  walk  disorder^  ;”  but  he  says  : u For  we  hear  that  there 
are  some  which  walk  among  you  (en  umin)  disorderly.”  Surely, 
surely,  he  would  not  have  so  expressed  himself,  had  he  meant 
to  charge  disorderly  walking  on  the  u brethren”  themselves. 
Paul,  Sylvanus  and  Timotheus,  were  not  of  this  church,  which 
they  addressed  : and  that  they  should  say,  that  themselves  also, 
as  well  as  the  disorderly  persons,  were  among  the  u brethren  ” 
is  another  argument,  that  the  disorderly  persons  were  not  of 
the  church.  u We,”  says  the  epistle,  u behaved  not  ourselves 
disorderly  among  you  (en  umin.)” 

It  is  noteworthy,  that  the  original  word  for  walking  in  the 
11th  verse  is  a participle  of  the  very  verb,  which,  in  1st  Peter 
v.  8,  describes  the  devil  as  walking  about.  It  is  proper,  how- 
ever, to  admit,  that  this  verb,  so  far  from  being  used  in  exclu- 
sive connection  with  the  wicked,  is,  sometimes,  coupled  with 
the  name  even  of  the  Saviour. 

A few  words  respecting  the  14th  and  15th  verses  will  close 
what  I have  to  say  respecting  this  chapter.  These  verses  are 


14 


to  be  considered  by  themselves  ; and  not  to  be  confounded  with 
the  other  p$rts  of  the  chapter. 

As  he  could  not  be  a Christian,  who  disobeyed  what  he  knew 
to  be  a command  of  an  inspired  apostle,  so  the  person,  guilty 
by  the  supposition , of  the  disobedience  spoken  of  in  the  14th 
verse,  could  not  be  a Christian.  But,  although  he  was  to  be 
excluded  from  Christian  fellowship,  he  was  to  be  counted,  “ not 
as  an  enemy,  but  admonished  as  a brother.5’  Under  the  Jewish 
dispensation  men  needed  to  be  told  not  to  hate  their  brother, 
Lev.  xix.  17 ; — and  they  need  the  same  instruction  under  the 
Christian  dispensation.  u Brother,55  in  the  15th  verse,  neces- 
sarily means  but  a brother  man,  instead  of  a Christian  brother. 
Such,  evidently,  is  the  comprehensive  meaning  of  the  word 
(same  in  the  original,)  in  Mat.  v.  22 — James  ii.  15 — 1st  John 
ii.  9,  10,  11. 

We  will  pass  on  to  examine  another  of  the  arguments  in  fa- 
vor of  the  position,  that  the  friends  of  God  can  be  excluded 
from  the  church  of  God.  It  is  said,  that  no  Christians,  who 
rejected  baptism  and  the  Lord’s  supper,  would  have  been  ac- 
knowledged to  be  members  of  a church  in  the  time  of  the  apos- 
tles. But,  I deny  that,  on  the  supposition,  that  the  apostles  en- 
joined these  ordinances  on  their  cotemporaries,  there  were  such 
Christians.  They  were  not  Christians,  who  withheld  obedience 
from  what  they  knew  to  be  apostolic  requirements.  So  too, 
the  cotemporaries  of  the  apostles,  who  rejected  the  u doctrine 
of  election,”  could  not  have  been  Christians,  provided  the 
apostles  told  them  to  acknowledge  it.  But,  does  it  follow,  that 
the  present  rejecters  of  either  of  these  doctrines  are  not  Chris- 
tians 1 By  no  means.  And,  yet,  either  the  one  or  the  other 
class  of  them  are  rejecters  of  apostolic  teachings — for  such 
teachings  there  doubtless  were,  in  respect  to  these  doctrines, 
and  as  plain  also,  as  were  apostolic  teachings  in  respect  to  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord’s  supper.  They  are  Christians,  however, 
notwithstanding  they  reject  apostolic  instruction — for  they 
know  not  that  they  reject  it.  So,  also,  on  the  like  ground  of 
honest  ignorance,  may  persons  at  this  day  be  Christians,  not- 
withstanding they  directly  oppose  what  the  cotemporaries  of  the 
apostles  well  knew  to  be  apostolic  teaching,  respecting  baptism 
and  the  Lord’s  supper.  Were  I to  misapprehend  the  immediate 


16 


causes  and  the  mode  of  the  assassination  of  Julius  Caesar,  I should 
not  be  judged  harshly  for  my  misinterpretations  of  the  histori- 
cal accounts  of  that  event.  But  a misstatement  on  these  points 
from  the  pens  or  lips  of  Brutus  and  Cassius,  who  had  a hand, 
both  in  the  plot  and  execution  of  it,  would  be  justly  stamped 
with  guilty  falsehood.  To  confound,  however,  my  innocent 
mistake  in  this  case  with  the  wilful  misrepresentation  of  Brutus 
and  Cassius,*  would  be  no  more  unjust  and  absurd,  than  to  class 
the  good  men,  who  in  this  age,  misinterpret  apostolic  teach- 
ings, with  the  wicked  men,  who,  eighteen  centuries  ago, 
heard  those  teachings,  as  they  fell  from  the  lips  of  the  apostles, 
and  yet  rejected  them. 

I close  my  remarks  under  this  head  by  asking  candor  and 
common  sense  to  tell  me — why,  if  sectarianism  excludes  from 
church  membership  confessed  Christians,  who  err  in  respect  to 
baptism  and  the  Lord’s  supper,  it  does  not  also  exclude  confes- 
sed Christians,  who  err  in  respect  to  the  “ doctrine  of  election,” 
or  its  rival  doctrine? — and  by  further  asking  how  meritorious 
that  logic  is,  which  argues,  that,  because  it  was  right  not  to 
number'in  the  first  churches  those,  who  were  certainly  not  Chris- 
tians’,  it  is  also  right  to  refuse  to  number  in  the  present  churches 
those,  icho  certainly  are  Christians?  But  this  question  associates 
in  my  mind,  and  leads  me  to  reply  to,  another  and  the  only 
other  relied  on  position  taken  by  the  sectaries. 

This  position  is,  that  baptism  is  the  door  of  the  church  : and 
that,  hence,  whilst  church  members  may  be  guilty  of  errors  on 
innumerable  other  points,  no  one  can  be  a church  member 
who  errs  in  relation  to  baptism.*  Even  in  the  present  age,  and 
by  such  truly  great  and  good  men,  as  Dr.  Griffin  and  Dr. 
Dwight,  has  it  been  contended,  that  water  baptism  is  the  door 
of  the  church.  Says  Dr.  G.  in  his  letter  on  communion : 

u Baptism  is  the  initiatory  ordinance  which  introduces  into 
the  visible  church.  Of  course,  where  there  is  no  baptism, 
there  are  no  visible  churches.  We  ought  not  to  commune  with 
those,  who  are  not  baptized  and  who  are,  of  course,  not  church 
members,  even  if  we  regard  them  as  Christians.  Should  a 


* In  the  Debate,  Mr.  Smith  but  glanced  at  this  position.  But  in  writing  hip 
Argument  for  the  press,  he  thought  it  better  to  be  explicit  upon  it. 


16 


pious  Quaker  so  far  depart  from  his  principles,  as  to  wish  to 
commune  with  me  at  the  Lord/s  table,  whilst  he  yet  refused  to 
be  baptized,  I could  not  receive  him.” 

Says  Dr.  D.  in  his  156th  sermon  : 

u Baptism  is  made  by  Christ  (in  John  iii.  5,)  a condition  ab- 
solutely necessary  to  an  authorized  entrance  into  his  visible 
church.” 

After  saying  that  I regard  the  distinction  between  an  earthly 
visible  and  an  earthly  invisible  church  as  wholly  fallacious  and 
immeasurably  pernicious ; and  that  I will  speak  further  upon 
it,  at  a future  stage  of  this  discussion,  I proceed  to  say,  that  the 
argument,  that  baptism  is  the  door  of  the  church,  is  simply  the 
sectarian  interpretation  of  John  iii.  5.  But  this  interpretation, 
inasmuch  as  it  proves  too  much  for  the  position  of  the  sectaries, 
proves  nothing  for  it.  1 might,  indeed,  add,  that  it  not  only 
proves  nothing  for  it,  but  all  that  I could  ask  against  it.  If, 
as  the  sectaries  contend,  the  kingdom  of  God  in  this  verse 
means  but  what  they  call  the  visible  church — that  is,  the  ag- 
gregate of  righteous  and  unrighteous  persons, , which  they  un- 
derstand by  the  phrase  u local  churches  ” — then  is  my  defini- 
tion of  a local  church  irresistibly  true — then  are  the  local 
churches  of  the  world  made’'  up  of  all  the  Christians  of  the 
world.  For  if  the  local  churches  make  up  this  kingdom,  then, 
inasmuch  as  on  the  very  face  of  this  verse  all  the  subjects  of 
this  kingdom  are  bom  of  the  spirit,  or,  in  other  words,  are  Chris- 
tians, it  follows  unavoidably,  that  the  local  churches  are  made 
up,  neither  more  nor  less,  of  all  the  Christians  in  the  world  : — 
a conclusion,  which  crowns  my  argument  with  triumph,  and  ut- 
terly demolishes  sectarianism. 

I might,  here,  take  leave  of  this  verse,  having  turned  the  in- 
terpretation of  it  by  the  sectaries  fairly  and  fatally  against  them- 
selves. I will,  however,  give  my  own  interpretation  of  it. 
This  interpretation  will  be  so  new  and  surprising  to  you,  that 
you  will,  probably,  regard  it  as  wrong.  But  what  if  it  be 
wrong  I Sectarianism,  which  has  already  been  proved  to  be 
entirely  and  irredeemably  wrong,  will  not,  therefore,  be  right. 
Wrong  the  interpretation  may  be — for,  as  in  the  case  of  my  in- 
terpretation of  2d  Thess.  iii.,  and  of  3d  John  x.,  I have  not  a 
particle  of  human  authority  for  it.  Wrong  it  may  be,  for  I am 


17 


an  unlearned  man,  and  am,  therefore,  obliged,  in  all  my  Bible 
arguments,  to  make  the  Bible  not  only  its  own  interpreter,  but, 
well  nigh,  my  only  interpreter  of  its  meaning.  Nevertheless,  I 
have,  for  many  years,  had  a growing  confidence,  that  it  is  the 
true  interpretation.  Ere  entering  upon  it,  let  me  remark,  that, 
in  my  judgment,  the  sectarian  reading  of  this  verse,  which 
makes  it  say  : “ Except  a man  be  born  of  water  he  cannot  en- 
ter the  visible  church  ; and  except  a man  be  born  of  the  spirit 
he  cannot  enter  the  invisible  church,’5  is  a liberty  with  the 
scriptures,  quite  as  absurd,  as  it  is  unwarranted. 

There  are  four  verses  in  the  Bible,  which,  looking  at  their 
bare  letter,  seem,  in  greater  or  less  degree,  to  teach,  that  water 
baptism  contributes  directly  and  essentially  to  save  the  soul. 
One  of  them  is  the  verse  before  us*.  The  others  are  Mark  xvi. 
16 — Acts  ii.  38,  and  xxii.  16.  Do  these  verses  really  teach  this 
doctrine  1 Let  the  Bible  answer.  But,  whilst. I say,  let  the  Bi- 
ble answer,  I also  say,  that  we  are  not  to  insult  the  Bible  and 
common  sense,  and  to  degrade  the  Christian  religion  from  the 
glory  of  its  spirituality  to  the  vileness  of  materialism,  by  doubt- 
ing, for  an  instant,  what  answer  the  Bible  will  give  to  this  ques- 
tion. We  are  to  take  it  for  granted,  that  the  Bible  will  be  found 
to  ascribe  no  power  to  water  to  cleanse  the  soul. 

Innumerable  scriptures  teach,  that  faith,  and  faith  alone, 
saves  the  soul.  Look,  for  instance,  at  John  iii.  18,  36 — Acts 
xvi.  31 — Rom.  x.  9 — 2d  Thess.  ii.  12.  Even  one  of  the  four 
verses,  which  we  are  to  examine,  teaches,  by  irresistible  impli- 
cation, that  faith  saves  the  soul : u but,  he  that  belie veth  not 
shall  be  damned.”  It  also  teaches,  in  this  phrase,  that,  though 
one  be  baptized,  and  yet  does  not  believe,  he  cannot  be  saved. 
In  the  light  of  this  teaching,  therefore,  and  of  the  many  scrip- 
tures, which  directly  give  salvation  to  faith,  how  utterly  power- 
less is  water  to  save ! But,  in  addition  to  these  testimonies  to 
the  impotence  of  water,  there  is  one  verse  (1st  Peter  iii.  21,) 
which  explicitly  teaches  this  impotence.  I will  delay  no  longer 
to  give  you  my  interpretation  of  John  iii.  5. 

The  Jews  laid  a very  great  and  a very  undue  stress  on  the 
religious  use  of  water.  Their  baptisms  of  their  persons,  ves- 
sels, &c.,  were  without  number  or  end.  In  the  language  of 
our  temperance  times,  they  were,  emphatically,  “ a cold  water 

2 


18 


people.”  But,  probably,  never  did  their  imaginations  carry 
them  so  far  on  this  subjeft,  as  at  the  period  of  the  interview  of 
Nicodemus  and  the  Saviour — the  period,  when  John  was  bap- 
tizing in  the  wilderness,  and  “ there  went  out  unto  him  all 
the  land  of  Judea  and  they  of  Jerusalem,  and  were  all  bap- 
tized of  him  in  the  river  of  Jordan,  confessing  their  sins.” 
What  more  reasonable  than  to  suppose,  that  Nicodemus  par- 
took of  his  nation’s  superstitions  and  extravagant  opinions  con- 
cerning water  ? What  more  reasonable  than  to  suppose,  that 
Nicodemus  came  to  the  Saviour  with  the  thought  in  his  heart, 
if  not,  indeed,  upon  his  lips,  that  John’s  baptism,  to  which  all 
were  rushing,  had  possibly  some,  if  not  all,  power  to  save  the 
soul?  We  know  little  of  what  Nicodemus  said  in  this  inter- 
view. The  record  of  the  interview  probably  does  not  give  one- 
tenth  paiTof  what  he  said  in  it.  The  third  verse  is  not  an  an- 
swer to  the  second.  But  it  is,  as  I suppose,  an  answer  to  the 
uttered  or  unuttered  sentiments  of  Nicodemus,  regarding  water 
baptism.  All  the  same,  if  unuttered,  as  uttered,  to  him,  who, 
as  we  learn,  only  two  verses  back,  needed  not  the  revelation  of 
the  lips  to  learn  what  was  in  man.  In  the  fourth  verse  Nico- 
demus scouts  the  idea  of  a literal  second  birth — his  heart  still 
clinging,  as  I suppose,  to  its  reliance  on  the  regenerating 
power  of  water  baptism.  To  this  vain  and  absurd  reliance  the 
Saviour  replies  in  the  fifth  verse.  So  far  is  he  from  teaching 
in  it  the  efficacy  of  water  to  save  the  soul,  that  he  pours  con- 
tempt on  the  absurd  idea ; and  gives  to  the  Holy  Spirit  all  the 
honor  of  accomplishing  the  soul’s  salvation.  That  he  gives 
this  honor  to  the  Holy  Spirit,  in  other  verses  in  this  chapter,  none 
will  deny.  That,  in  no  other  verse,  does  he  give  any  share  of 
it  to  water,  none  will  deny.  And  that,  in  the  verse  before  us, 
he  disdains  to  give  any  share  of  it  to  water  baptism  will  be 
manifest  in  what  the  way  is  now  prepared  for  me  to  say. 

He,  who,  with  a dull  imagination,  reads  narratives — especially 
of  oriental  writers,  as  are  the  narratives  of  the  scriptures — will, 
to  a great  extent,  fail  to  catch  the  spirit,  and  comprehend  and 
feel  the  force  of  their  instructions.  To  read  them  without  the 
called-for  pictures  in  our  minds  of  scenery  and  circumstances, 
is  to  expose  ourselves  to  great  misconception  of  what  they  teach. 
Imagination  has  aided  us — I trust  not  misled  us — thus  far  in  our 


19 


examination  of  this  verse.  Continuing  to  invoke  her  help,  as 
well  as  every  other  help,  which  we  need,  we  will  proceed  in 
the  examination. 

Suppose  a man  says  to  me  : “ I will  attend  church  and  there- 
by be  saved and  I reply:  “Except  you  attend  church,  and 
be  born  of  the  spirit , you  will  not  he  saved  ” — would  it  be  rea- 
sonable and  natural  to  infer,  that  my  object,  in  repeating  his 
words,  was  to  admit,  that  attending  church  is  essential  to  salva- 
tion ? Certainly  not.  But  the  reasonable  and  natural  inference 
would  be,  that  I repeated  them  for  the  directly  opposite  purpose 
of  testifying,  that  it  is  the  divine  influences,  and  not  attending 
church,  which  saves  the  soul.  “ I will  talk  to  the  boys  in  the 
apple  tree,  and  they  will  come  down.”  “Except  you  talk,  and 
throw  stones  too , they  will  not  come  down.”  “ I will  threaten 
the  robbers,  and  they  will  run.”  “ Except  you  threaten,  and 
shoot  too , they  will  not  run.”  His  repetition  of  the  words  “ talk  ” 
and  “ threaten  ” manifestly  argues  the  repeater’s  sense  of  the 
ineffectualness,  instead  of  the  effectualness,  of  the  talking  and 
threatening.  Now,  in  the  case  before  us,  the  Saviour  catches  up 
the  word  “water”  from  the  lips  or  thoughts  of  Nicodemus, 
and  repeats  it  for  the  purpose  of  declaring  the  utter  vanity  of 
water  to  revovate  the  heart.  He  says  to  him  : — “ Except  a man 
be  born  of  water  and  the  spirit , &c.” 

How  well  does  this  interpretation  of  the  verse  harmonize  with 
the  contrasts  in  Mat.  iii.  11,  and  Acts  i.  5,  between  water  bap- 
tism and  the  baptism  of  the  Holy  Spirit ! 

I pass  on  to  the  examination  of  another  of  the  four  verses, 
viz.  Mark  xvi.  16.  You  will  remember,  that,  when  adverting  to 
this  verse  a few  minutes  since,  I showed,  that  no  argument  for 
the  power  of  water  baptism  to  save  the  soul  could  be  derived 
from  it.  It  remains  to  explain,  why  it  is,  that  water  baptism  is 
referred  to  in  it : and  this  reference  I will  explain  in  a way  not 
very  dissimilar  to  that  which  I took  in  explaining  the  like  refer- 
ence in  the  fifth  verse  of  the  3d  chapter  of  John. 

Read  the  last  five  verses  of  Matthew’s  gospel,  and  the  13th 
to  18th  verses  in  the  last  chapter  of  Mark,  and  .hold  them  all 
clearly,  steadily,  strongly,  in  your  minds,  until  I have  done  with 
this  branch  of  my  subject.  The  Saviour  had  no  need  to  urge  his 
eleven  disciples  to  baptize  : for,  whether  as  Jews  or  Chris- 


20 


tians,  they  felt  no  indisposition  to  this  service.  But,^there  was 
one  thing,  of  which  the  beloved  and  adorable,  and  oh  ! how 
patient  God-man  hadt  need,  even  to  the  very  last : — and  that 
was  to  convince  those  eleven  disciples  of  his  Messiahship,  and 
of  his  equal  title  with  his  Father  to  be  worshipped.  To  pro- 
duce this  conviction,  he  did  ce  many  signs, ” after  his  resurrec- 
tion. See  John  xx.  30,  31.  Even  after  his  resurrection,  they 
were  still  full  of  unbelief.  Even  after  his  resurrection,  their 
worship  of  him  was  mingled  with  doubts  and  misgivings.  It 
was  faith,  that  he  had  need  to  inculcate  upon  his  disciples.  And 
because  of  their  own  too  little  sensibility  to  its  vital  importance, 
he  had  need  to  spend  his  last  earthly  moments  in  enjoining  on 
them  to  require  those  to  be  exercised  with  a right  faith,  who 
should  present  their  claim  to  be  numbered  with  his  followers. 
It  was,  as  if  he  had  said  : u Tell  men,  that  it  is  faith — faith  in 
me,  as  the  Messiah  and  the  equal  of  the  Father — not  baptism, 
which  saves  the  soul.  Tell  them,  c He  that  believeth  shall  be 
saved.5  55  See  also  the  promises,  which  are  here  made  to  faith: 
to  u them  that  believe” — whilst,  here,  are  none  made  to  bap- 
tism. But,  I maybe  asked,  how  I can  reconcile  this  construed 
insignificance  of  baptism  in  this  connection  with  the  great  stress 
laid  on  it  in  the  commission  to  “ go  and  teach  all  nations,  bap- 
tizing them. 55  I reply,  that  neither  great  stress,  nor  any  stress, 
is  laid  on  it  in  that  commission.  It  was  not  to  inculcate  the 
maintenance  of  the  rite  of  baptism,  that  he  refers  to  it  in  the 
commission.  This  rite,  which  God  instituted — this  rite  of 
which  Christ  approved,  even  to  the  extent  of  submitting  his 
own  person  to  it,  was,  already,  well  established,  and  would 
continue  to  the  end  of  time.  The  Saviour  here  mentions  it,  not 
for  the  superfluous  re-inculcation  of  it ; but  to  explain  and  en- 
join the  new  'purpose  of  its  future  observance.  He  here  men- 
tions it  to  teach  his  disciples,  who,  even  now,  worshipped  him 
hesitatingly — who,  even  now,  needed  to  be  assured,  that  u all 
power  was  given  unto  him  in  heaven  and  in  earth  ;” — that, 
henceforth,  they  must  exact  faith  in  him  as  God,  and  the  wor- 
ship of  him  as  God,  and  the  observance  of  all  things,  whatso- 
ever he  had  commanded — in  a word,  that,  henceforth — that  be- 
cause of  his  £C  all  power” — that  u therefore,”  to  use  the  Bible 
word — they  must  baptize  in  the  name  of  himself , as  well  as  of 


21 


the  Father,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  In  this  wise,  they  had  never 
yet  baptized. 

How  manifest,  also,  from  Luke  xxiv.  47,  and  Acts  i.  8 — x.42,43, 
that  the  Saviour’s  object  in  the  “ commission”  was  not  to  teach 
his  disciples  the  duty  of  the  rite  of  baptism — a duty,  in  which 
they  had  been  already  abundantly  instructed: — but  to  teach  them 
to  go  “ unto  the  people,”  and  “ among  all  nations,”  and  to  re- 
quire faith  in  himself  as  the  Messiah,  and  in  his  power  to  for- 
give sins.  And  how  delightful  the  record,  that,  scarcely  had 
Peter  given  this  explanation  of  the  “ commission,”  ere  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  if  to  seal  the  truth  of  it,  u fell  on  all  them  which 
heard”  it — Acts  x.  44. 

To  illustrate  and  justify  my  interpretation  of  the  “ commis- 
sion,” I will  suppose,  that  it  is,  already,  the  established  prac- 
tice for  all  the  subjects  of  Great  Britain  to  swear  allegiance  to 
their  sovereign  : — but  that,  now,  Parliament  enacts  a law,  which 
modifies  this  practice,  and  requires  allegiance  to  be  sworn  to 
the  sovereign’s  conjugal  partner  also — to  Prince  Albert,  as  well 
as  to  Queen  Victoria.  What  news  would  this  law  send  through 
the  world? — the  news,  that  the  British  Government  required  its 
subjects  to  swear  allegiance? — oh  no! — for  such  is  an  old  re- 
quirement. It  would  send  the  news,  that,  now , it  is  required  to 
swear  allegiance  to  Prince  Albert  also.  So,  likewise,  in 
the  case  of  the  “ commission.  ” It  declares  something 
new.  The  news  of  the  “ commission,”  was  not,  that  it  re- 
quired baptism:  but  that  it  required  baptism,  in  the  name  of  the 
Son  also. 

Pardon  the  remark,  that  never  was  I so  deeply  convinced  of 
the  divine  dignity  and  Godship  of  Jesus  Christ,  as,  when  seek- 
ing, and  (as  I firmly  believe,)  finding  also,  the  true,  great,  and 
precious  meaning  of  Mat.  xxviii.  19,  20. 

Another  object,  also,  the  Saviour  may  have  had  in  the  “ com- 
mission.” His  language  is  strong  evidence,  that  he  had  it.  In 
the  former  cc  commission  ” to  his  disciples,  he  had  required 
them  to  confine  their  labors  to  the  Jews — to  “ go  not  into  the 
way  of  the  Gentiles,  and  enter  not  into  any  city  of  the  Sama- 
ritans.” Henceforth,  however,  they  were  to  “ go  into  all  the 
world.”  No  longer  were  they  to  shut  up  their  sympathies 
within  the  limits  of  their  own  nation.  The  time  of  such  ex- 


22 


elusiveness — of  such  partiality — they  were  now  to  regard  as? 
forever  past.  Oh  that  it  had  been  forever  past ! Then,  would 
the  world  have  no  more  been  cursed  with  sectarianism.  Secta- 
rian and  national  prejudices  die  together.  They  are  sprouts 
from  the  same  root; — and  are  characterized  by  a common 
littleness  and  a common  intolerance. 

Another  of  the  four  verses,  which  we  proposed  to  examine, 
is  Acts  ii.  38.  Let  scripture  explain  scripture,  and  let  Peter 
explain  Peter.  Acts  iii.  19,  shows  that  Peter’s  reliance  for  the 
remission,  or  blotting  out,  of  sins  is  not  on  baptism,  but  on  re- 
pentance and  conversion.  Moreover,  the  inculcation  of  bap- 
tism in  this  case,  as  in  Mat.  xxviii.  19,  had,  for  its  prime  object, 
the  inculcation  of  faith  in  Jesus  as  the  Messiah.  The  com- 
mand in  this  case  to  be  baptized — a command,  remember,  ad- 
dressed to  those,  who  had  hitherto  been  ignorant  of  Christian 
baptism,  was  a command  to  swear  allegiance  to  King  Jesus. 

The  remaining  one  of  the  four  verses  is  Acts  xxii.  16.  And, 
here,  the  requirement  of  Ananias  is  evidently,  that  Paul  should 
not  content  himself  with  the  sign,  but  should  realize  the  thing 
signified ; that,  in  other  words,  he  should  wash  his  heart,  as 
well  as  his  body.  This  passage  makes  nothing  for  the  efficacy 
of  water  to  cleanse  the  heart.  I think,  however,  that  it  favors 
a more  copious  use  of  water  in  the  rite  of  baptism,  than  some 
Christians  approve  of.  Wash  your  heart,  as  well  as  wash  your 
body,  is  as  congruous,  as  wash  your  heart,  as  well  as  sprinkle 
your  body,  is  incongruous. 

I have,  now,  finished  the  examination  of  the  four  verses,  the 
letter  of  which  has  a show  of  argument  for  the  power  of  water 
to  renovate  the  heart.  Is  it  said,  that  my  train  of  thought,  in 
this  examination,  goes  to  call  in  question  the  duty  of  Christian 
baptism  ? I reply,  that  I intended  no  such  thing  : and,  I add, 
that,  not  to  speak  of  other  authority  for  Christian  baptism,  it  has, 
in  the  practice  of  it  by  the  apostles,  not  only  the  full  authority 
of  the  apostles,  but  of  Christ  himself.  I said,  that  the  disciples 
had  not  hitherto  baptized,  as  the  Saviour,  now,  directed  them  to 
baptize.  I add  that  Christian  baptism  was  never  practiced,  until 
after  the  ascension  of  the  Saviour.  The  time,  from  the  begin- 
ning of  John’s  ministry  until  the  Saviour’s  death,  was  a dispen- 
sation by  itself — a connecting  link  between  the  Jewish  and 


23 


Christian  dispensations — the  evening  twilight  of  the  one,  and 
the  morning  twilight  of  the  other. 

The  Saviour’s  parents  made  an  offering  for  him.  He  bade  the 
leper  offer  to  the  priest.  He  ate  the  passover.  All  this  was 
according  to  the  Jewish  economy.  Not,  until  “ the  veil  of  the 
temple  was  rent  in  twain  from  the  top  to  the  bottom,”  did  the 
old  dispensation  pass  entirely  away. 

John’s  baptism  was  not  Christian  baptism  ; and,  when  secta- 
rianism shall  have  ceased,  and,  with  it,  all  temptation  to  identify 
the  one  with  the  other,  it  will  be,  universally,  seen  and  acknowl- 
edged, that  the  one  is  distinct  from  the  other.  John  did  not 
receive  his  commission  from  Christ.  The  Saviour  refers  (John 
v.  31,  32,  33,)  to  the  fact,  that  John  witnessed  of  him.  But 
this  reference  he  would  not  have  made,  had  he  himself  com- 
missioned John.  John’s  witnessing  of  Christ  had  its  great 
value  in  the  fact,  that  he  was  commissioned  and  sent  by  the 
Father,  and  could,  therefore,  testify  disinterestedly  of  the  Son. 

John  baptized  into  the  belief  of  one  to  come.  John  did  not 
know  certainly,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ — see  Luke  vii.  19. 
In  the  28  th  verse  of  this  chapter,  we  see,  how  dark  is  John’s 
dispensation,  compared  with  Christ’s  ; — for  we,  here,  learn,  that 
even  the  least  of  those  disciples,  who  enjoy  the  light  and  teach- 
ings of  the  Christian  dispensation,  is  greater  than  John.  The 
dispensation  of  John  was  not  illuminated  by  that  blessed  Spirit, 
who  teaches  all  things ; and  for  whose  coming  it  was  needful, 
that  the  Saviour  should  go  away.  I do  not  believe,  that  even 
Apollos  knew,  that  Jesus  was  the  Christ,  until  after  Aquila  and 
Priscilla  “ had  expounded  unto  him  the  way  of  the  Lord  more 
perfectly.”  Acts  xviii.  24  to  28. 

The  19th  chap,  of  Acts  shows  conclusively,  that  John’s  bap- 
tism is  not  identical  with  Christian  baptism. 

In  the  light  of  these  facts  and  also  of  the  facts,  which  show 
how  ignorant  of  the  Saviour  were  both  the  world  and  even  His 
own  disciples  ; how  unreasonable  to  suppose,  that  John  baptized 
into  the  belief  of  Jesus,  as  the  Messiah  and  the  sovereign  God ! 

Baptism  was,  also,  practiced  by  the  disciples  of  Christ  during 
his  life.  That,  however,  did  not  make  it  Christian  baptism. 
They  were,  well  nigh,  as  ignorant  of  the  true  and  essential  cha- 
racter of  Jesus,  as  was  John  the  Baptist.  To  keep  the  world 


24 


in  ignorance  of  that  character,  was,  manifestly,  the  Savour’s  pol 
icy.  To  dispel  such  ignorance,  only  very  gradually,  from  the 
minds  even  of  his  disciples,  was,  also,  his  policy.  On  the  mount 
of  transfiguration,  he  charged  three  of  his  disciples  to  u tell  nc- 
man  what  things  they  had  seen,  till  the  Son  of  Man  were  risen 
from  the  dead.  And  they  kept  it  close  and  told  no  man.” 
So  too,  when,  Peter  declared  Jesus  to  be  the  Christ,  he  charged 
his  disciples  not  to  tell,  that  he  was  the  Christ.  Indeed,  it  was 
never  until  his  arraignment  before  the  high  priest,  that  he,  pub- 
licly, acknowledged  himself  to  be  the  Christ.  How  irrecon- 
cilable with  his  studied  concealment  from  the  world  of  his 
Messiahship,  and  with  the  great  ignorance  on  this  subject,  in 
which  he  kept  even  his  disciples,  is  the  supposition,  that  he  au- 
thorized them  to  baptize  into  thfc  belief  of  himself,  as  the  Mes- 
siah, and  the  Lord  of  heaven  and  earth. 

Christian  baptism  is  into  the  belief  of  Christ’s  death — Rom. 
vi.  3, 4.  But,  his  disciples  could  not  endure  the  idea  of  his  death,. 
Mat.  xvi.  22.  It  is  also  a baptism  into  the  belief  of  Christ’s 
resurrection — 1st  Peter,  iii.  21.  But,  his  disciples  did  not 
know  u what  the  rising  from  the  dead  could  mean’* — Mark 
ix.  10. 

The  Christian  sacraments  belong  to  the  kingdom  of  God. 
But,  all  the  time,  the  Saviour  was  on  the  earth,  that  kingdom  was 
represented  to  be  future.  He  himself  so  represents  it,  even 
after  John’s  imprisonment.  u The  kingdom  of  God  is  at  hand,”* 
(Mark  i.  15,)  that  is — near  by — but,  not  yet.  Evidently,  John 
himself  was  not  in  that  kingdom.  And  one  of  the  petitions, 
which  the  Saviour  bade  his  disciples  offer  is,  6C  Thy  kingdom 
come.” 

Under  the  promptings  of  these  additional  testimonies,  I must, 
again,  say,  that  it  is  utterly  vain  to  contend,  that  John  ever  did, 
or  that  the  Saviour’s  disciples,  during  their  Lord’s  stay  on  the 
earth,  ever  did  baptize  in  the  name  of  the  Father  and  the  Son 
and  the  Holy  Ghost. 

In  concluding  this  part  of  my  argument,  let  me  remaft,  that, 
although  Christian  baptism  differs  in  its  objects  from  the  baptism 
practiced  before  the  Saviour’s  death ; I see  not  one  reason  to 
doubt,  but,  on  the  contrary,  many  reasons  to  believe,  that  the 
mode,  in  both  cases,  was  the  same.  If  immersion  were  the 
mode  before  his  death,  it  was  the  mode  after  his  death  also. 


25 


The  Bible  argument  against  sectarianism  and  the  Bible  argu- 
ment  for  it  are  now  both  before  you.  The  former  you  find  im- 
pregnable— the  latter  but  a bundle  of  misapprehensions  and 
misinterpretations.  Here,  I might  stop.  The  objections  to  re- 
ducing to  practice  the  Bible  theory  of  a local  church,  I am  not 
bound  to  reply  to.  Nevertheless,  I consent  to  reply  to  them, 
notwithstanding,  I might  fairly  excuse  myself  from  the  task  of 
replying  to  objections  to  a theory,  after  I have,  so  fully,  shown 
it  to  be  from  Heaven. 

The  objectors  say  : (t  But  how  can  we  consent  to  receive  all 
sorts  of  Christians — Christians  of  all  sorts  of  notions — into  the 
church  ?”  To  these  objectors  my  soul  indignant  replies  : “ Who 
are  you,  that  you  should  make  the  entrance  of  your  fellow-men 
into  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ  turn  on  your  consent  ? Has 
he  given  to  you  this  power?  No — neither  to  you  nor  to  St. 
Peter.  He  keeps  it  in  his  own  hand,  and  ever  will.”  Con- 
soling assurance  to  the  poor  sinner,  that  it  is  so ; — that  not  men, 
but  Jesus  Christ  alone,  can  shut  out  of  his  church.  Consoling 
assurance  too,  that  he  has  made  the  door  of  his  church  on  earth 
no  narrower  than  the  door  of  his  church  in  heaven.  The  Sa- 
viour has  not  given  one  set  of  rules  for  entering  his  church 
above ; and  another  and  essentially  different  set,  for  entering 
his  church  below.  Heaven  is  open  to  every  Christian, — and, 
surely,  then,  there  is  no  enclosure  on  earth,  however  sacred,  that 
may  be  shut  against  any  Christian.  The  church  of  Christ  on 
earth  is  the  family  of  Christ  on  earth; — and  are  not  its  members 
to  feel  themselves  as  closely,  as  indissolubly,  bound  together,  as 
the  members  of  the  natural  family  1 So  intimate  is  the  rela- 
tion of  husband  and  wife,  that,  whilst  it  exists,  66  they  twain  are 
one  flesh,”  and  inseparable.  But,  closer  far  is  the  relation  be- 
tween Christians,  and  far  more  abhorrent,  therefore,  should  be 
the  idea  of  their  disunion  from  each  other. 

Alas,  that  men  should  regard  the  church  as  of  human,  instead 
of  divine  constitution ! Alas,  that  they  should  claim  the  right 
of  voting  in  and  voting  out  of  it ! Alas  the  folly,  the  madness, 
which  claims,  that  a member  of  Christ’s  family  may  not,  can- 
not, come  into  Christ’s  family — into  Christ’s  church — unless  he 
be  voted  in  by  men ! A child,  born  into  the  world,  last  night, 
in  one  of  the  families  of  this  village,  becomes,  by  the  very  fact 


26 


of  his  birth,  a member  of  it.  It  is  not  necessary  to  take  the 
vote,  and  obtain  the  consent  of  the  family,  ere  he  can  become 
a member  of  it.  Moreover,  he  is  entitled  to  the  provisions  of 
his  father’s  house,  simply  because  it  is  his  father’s  house.  So 
too,  when  a little  child  is  born  into  the  Saviour’s  family  (and 
every  one  born  into  it  is  a little  child,  Lukexviii.  17,)  the  new- 
comer is  not  obliged  to  ask  his  fellows,  whether  he  may  be 
reckoned  as  a member  of  the  Saviour’s  family.  The  Christian 
claims  his  place  among  God’s  children  for  the  sole  reason,  that 
he  is  a Christian  : and  he  has  no  right  to  consent,  that  it  should 
turn  on  the  votes  of  his  fellow-men,  whether  he  get  his  place. 
His  title-deed  to  the  privileges  and  blessings  of  Christ’s  church 
—of  Christ’s  family — comes  not  from  man ; but  from  Christ 
himself. 

But,  it  is  asked  : “ Are  we  to  welcome  into  the  family  and 
church  of  Christ  all  Christians — even  the  weakest  and  most 
erring!”  “ Yes — even  the  weakest  and  most  erring; — and,  this 
too,  for  the  sufficient  reason,  that  Christ  welcomes  them.”  We 
are  not  to  have  a higher  standard  than  Jesus  Christ  has.  We 
are  not  to  be  more  select  in  our  associations,  than  he  is. 
We  are  to  obey  the  apostle,  when  he  says,  u Him  that  is 
weak  in  the  faith  receive  ye.”  The  weakness,  here  imputed 
to  some  of  the  Roman  Christians,  is,  as  the  original  language 
and  the  subject  matter  teach,  one  with  the  weakness  spoken  of 
in  the  8th  chap.  1st  Cor. — and,  in  that  chapter,  it  evidently 
means,  not  only  weakness , but  error  of  faith — not  only  a slender 
hold  of  truth)  but  a hold  of  error , also.  The  weakness,  spoken 
of  in  that  chapter,  is  a conscientious  regard  for.  idols — is,  in 
short,  as  the  6th  and  7th  verses  make  indisputable,  the,  as  yet, 
unextinguished  remains  of  idolatry.  We  are  to  obey  the 
apostle,  when  he  says  : “ Wherefore  receive  ye  one  another,  as 
Christ  also  received  us.”  Christ  receives  every  Christian  into 
his  heart,  and  rejects  him  for  no  error.  So  the  Christian  is  to 
receive  his  fellow  Christian  into  his  heart,  and  to  reject  him  for 
no  error.  Do  you  ask,  whether  Christ  receives  every  Christian 
into  his  church  1 Then,  do  I ask,  whether  you  think  his  church 
is  a holier  place  than  his  heart!  How  foolish,  how  absurd,  in 
view  of  my  question,  appears  the  sectarian  distinction  between 
Christian  and  church  fellowship  ! — between  Christian  fellowship 


27 


and  eating  and  drinking  at  the  Lord’s  table ! What  can  be 
more  foolish  and  absurd  than  the  attempt  to  exalt  an  expression 
of  that  communion,  whose  seat  is  in  the  heart,  above  the  com- 
munion itself! 

I said,  that  we  are  to  welcome  into  the  church  the  most  weak 
and  erring  Christians.  I add,  that  we  are  to  be  especially  eager 
to  extend  the  offices  of  church  fellowship  to  such  ; for  it  is  such, 
who  most  need  them.  Church  fellowship  is  adapted  both  to 
correct  the  errors  of  Christians,  and  to  make  them  strong.  This 
is  one  of  its  heaven-designed  objects.  If  there  be  in  the  village 
of  Hamilton  a Christian  more  weak  and  erring  than  any  other 
Christian  in  it,  I claim,  that  he  is,  for  this  reason,  the  very  Chris- 
tian, whom  all  other  Christians  here  should  be  most  glad  to  wel- 
come to  the  nourishment  and  benefits  of  church  fellowship. 
He  should  be  regarded,  as  the  very  cosset  of  the  whole  spiritual 
flock  of  Hamilton.  As  parents,  who  have  a weak  and  deformed 
child,  make  it  the  especial  object  of  their  tenderness  and  solici- 
tude, so  should  Christians  look  especially  after  the  weakest  and 
most  wandering  of  the  flock; — carry  them  in  their  arms; — bathe 
them  in  the  tears  of  pity  and  love ; — and,  if  need  be,  exhaust 
upon  their  cure  every  medicine  of  the  soul,  which  the  Saviour 
has  put  at  the  disposal  of  his  church. 

I have  been  asked,  in  the  course  of  this  debate,  how  a church 
can  be  formed  on  the  principles  I am  commending ; and  how 
discipline  can  be  observed  in  it.  But,  if  these  principles  are, 
manifestly,  the  gospel  foundation  of  a church,  then  the  inability 
of  myself,  or  of  any,  or  of  all  other  persons,  to  answer  this 
question,  should  not  be  suffered  to  cast  doubt  or  disparagement 
on  such  principles.  But,  I will  attempt  to  answer  the  question. 
I will  suppose,  that,  simultaneously,  and  from  different  parts  of 
the  world,  a hundred  families  remove  to  a new  western  town- 
ship. They  name  it  Newtown.  Among  them  are  fifty  indi- 
viduals, who  have  saving  faith  in  Jesus  Christ.  These  fifty  are, 
therefore,  the  church  of  Newtown.  Their  mere  faith  makes 
them  such — just  as  mere  faith  made  the  church  in  Jerusalem  and 
the  church  in  Antioch.  What  person,  not  greatly  perverted  by 
a sectarian  education,  can  read  the  following  scriptures,  and 
hold  them  together  in  his  mind,  and  not  be  convinced,  that  per- 
sons became  members  of  the  church  in  Jerusalem  and  in  An- 
tioch, simply  by  believing  in  Jesus  ? 


28 

“ And  the  Lord  added  to  the  church  daily  such  as  should  be 
saved,”  Acts  ii.  47. 

“And  believers  were  the  more  added  to  the  Lord,”  Acts  v.  14. 

“ And  a great  number  believed  and  turned  unto  the  Lord,” 
Acts  xi.  21. 

Who  can  read  these  scriptures  and  others  of  like  import,  and 
doubt,  that  to  believe  is  to  join  the  church  l — that  to  believe 
is  to  open  the  door  to  the  earthly,  as  well  as  to  the  heavenly 
church  ? Is  it  not  manifest  from  these  scriptures,  that  to  turn 
unto  the  Lord,  and  to  be  added  unto  the  Lord,  are  the  same,  not 
only  as  believing  in  the  Lord,  but  as  being  added  to  the  church  ? 

We  now  have,  and  know  what  is,  the  church  of  Newtown. 
In  the  next  place,  they,  who  compose  it,  do,  by  the  very  law  of 
their  regenerate  nature,  and'  by  reason  of  the  mutual  recogni- 
tions of  spiritual  kindred,  give  the  hand  of  church  fellowship 
to  each  other.  They  proceed  to  do  the  duties  of  a church — to 
come  together  for  worship,  for  honoring  the  ordinances  of  bap- 
tism and  the  Lord’s  supper,  and  for  the  other  services,  to  which 
Christians  are  called  in  their  church  capacity.  I would  here 
speak  of  that  exceedingly  pernicious  and  almost  universal  error 
of  confounding  the  duties  of  a church  with  its  formation . The 
great  mass  of  Christians  regard  the  66  ordinances  ” — especially 
baptism — as  constituents  in  the  formation  of  a church.  They 
are,  however,  simply  duties  of  a church.  It  is  true,  that  there 
are  acts  of  social  interest  and  social  worship,  which,  in  the  na- 
ture of  things,  and  of  fixed  necessity,  result  from  the  constitution 
of  a church  : but  these  acts  are  no  more  elements  in  that  constitu- 
tion than  my  walking  is  an  element  of  my  physical  organization: 
or  than  the  water,  which  has  flowed  from  a fou  ntain,  is  the  fountain. 

But,  it  is  asked,  what  the  church  of  Newtown  will  do,  in  case 
one  part  of  them  recognises  as  a Christian  the  person,  who  comes 
to  cast  in  his  lot  with  them,  and  the  other  part  does  not.  I 
answer,  in  the  first  place,  that,  whilst  I deny,  that  such  disagree- 
ment is  fraught  with  very  serious,  much  less,  with  fatal  conse- 
quences, to  the  church,  I,  nevertheless,  admit,  that  it  is  to  be  la- 
mented. I answer,  in  the  second  place,  that  I readily  confess 
that  I know  not,  where  the  preventive  of  such  disagreement  can 
be  found,  unless  in  that  increase  of  holiness,  which  is  accom- 


29 


panied  by  a corresponding  increase  of  spiritual  discernment,  and 
by  a corresponding  ability  to  judge  of  Christian  character.  It 
is,  now,  my  turn  to  put  a question  : and,  I ask,  what  advantage, 
in  this  respect,  has  a sectarian  church  over  the  church  of  New- 
town? True,  the  voice  of  the  majority  in  a sectarian  church 
merges  in  itself  the  voice  of  the  minority  ; and  determines 
with  whom  the  minority  shall,  and  with  whom  it  shall  not,  have 
external  or  apparent  fellowship.  But,  as  this  controlling  voice 
has  no  power  to  determine  the  question  of  fellowship,  or  non- 
fellowship, in  the  heart,  so  its  coercion  is  put  forth,  not  only  in 
vain,  but  infinitely  worse  than  in  vain. 

We  pass  to  the  point  of  discipline.  The  church  of  New- 
town follows  the  Saviour’s  directions  in  Mat.  xviii.  A sectarian 
church,  from  the  fact,  that  it  is  a sectarian  church,  cannot  follow 
them.  The  moment  it  practically  admits,  as  this  chapter  clearly 
requires  it  to  admit,  that  every  person,  who  is  not  as  utterly  des- 
titute, as  u a heathen  man  and  a publican,’’  of  all  claims  to  the 
character  of  a Christian,  is  entitled  to  church  membership,  it 
ceases  to  be  a sectarian  church.  I would  here  remark,  that  one 
of  the  numerous  conclusive  arguments  against  sectarian  churches 
is  their  absolute  incapacity  to  discipline  for  sectarianism,  not- 
withstanding sectarianism  is  the  great  sin  of  schism.  The 
u church  of  Peterboro  ” is,  so  far  as  I know,  the  only  church, 
which  disciplines  for  sectarianism.  It  has,  now,  under  discipline 
for  this  sin,  a deacon  of  the  Baptist  sect,  who  is  an  exemplary 
and  beloved  Christian. 

The  church  of  Newtown,  when  convinced,  that  the  offender  is 
not  a Christian,  disfellowships  him.  It  does  not  vote  him  out  of 
the  church — forit  claims  no  power  to  vote,  either  in,  or  out  of,  the 
church.  It  simply  says,  that,  in  its  judgment,  he  is  not  in  the 
church. 

Such  is  the  church  of  Newtown.  We  will,  now,  see  what 
would  have  been  the  ecclesiastical  doings  in  that  town,  had 
they,  who  emigrated  to  it,  been  sectarians.  The  church,  as  God 
gave  it  to  them,  they  would  have  rejected.  The  duties,  which 
they  owed,  as  its  members,  they  would  have  refused  to  do.  The 
God-made  church  they  would  have  displaced,  or  supplanted,  with 
a man-made  church — with,  perhaps,  half  a dozen  man-made 
churches.  I would,  here,  say,  that  if  men  will  take  it  upon  ther 


30 


selves  to  make  churches,  they  should,  at  least,  follow  the  heaven- 
ly pattern,  so  far,  as  to  aim  to  include  in  them  all  the  Christians 
within  their  respective  territories.  But,  however  much  the  men, 
who  make  churches,  may  love  the  God-made  church ; they  do 
not  love  it,  as  a pattern,  for  the  man-made  church.  Its  terms  of 
membership  are  not  at  all  to  their  taste.  Its  platform  is  quite 
too  broad  for  those,  who  are  even  more  select  in  their  spiritual 
companionship,  than  the  infinitely  pure  and  holy  God  is  in 
his. 

cc  God  forbid,”  said  those  tribes  of  Israel,  whom  their  brethren 
accused  of  schism — u God  forbid,  that  we  should  rebel  against 
the  Lard  and  turn  this  day  from  following  the  Lord,  to  build 
an  altar  beside  the  altar  of  the  Lord  our  God,  that  is  before  his 
tabernacle,”  Josh.  xxii.  29.  Alas  ! that  Christians  should  not 
be  content  with  the  church,  as  it  comes  from  the  hand  of  God ! 
Alas  ! that  they  should  build  one  “ beside  ” it ! If  the  idea 
schism — of  the  building  of  a schismatic  or  sectarian  altar — an 
altar  to  come  in  competition  with  the  one  altar  of  the  universal 
brotherhood — were  so  deeply  abhorrent  under  the  old  dispensa- 
tion, how  amazing,  that  the  like  idea  should  be  welcome  under 
the  new ! 

But  the  sectaries  will  say  : £C  If  we  do  not  collect  and  organize 
our  church  by  voting  in  members,  how  shall  we  know,  who  are 
its  members  1 If  our  church  records  do  not  show,  who  are  its 
members,  how  shall  we  know,  who  they  are?”  I answer,  that 
the  Saviour  has  given  a rule  whereby  to  distinguish  the  mem- 
bers of  his  church  from  the  men  of  the  world — a rule  too,  which 
is  far  better — a guide  which  is  far  safer,  than  that  on  which  you 
rely.  It  is  this  : u Ye  shall  know  them  by  their  fruits.”  I am 
not  of  the  number  of  those,  who  think  it  important  to  know, 
who  are  Baptists,  and  who  are  Methodists,  and  who  are  Presby- 
terians, &c.  Such  poor  knowledge  is  not  worth  going  one  step 
after.  I readily  admit,  if  it  be  indispensable  to  know,  who  are 
Baptists,  and  who  are  Methodists,  and  who  are  Presbyterians, 
&c.,  that,  in  such  case,  it  is  indispensable  to  have  church  rolls 
of  names : — but,  I insist,  that,  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  who 
are  members  of  the  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  such  rolls  are  not 
only  worthless,  but  unspeakably  worse  than  worthless.  None 
are  members  of  his  church,  but  those,  whose  hearts  and  lives  bear 


31 


witness,  that  they  are:  and  if  your  church  rolls  say,  that  any  others 
are,  and,  also  imply  that  some,  who  are  Christians,  are  not  mem- 
bers of  his  church,  then  do  these  rolls  say  and  imply  falsehoods. 
Who  would  act  so  absurdly,  as  to  go  to  the  records  of  the  tem- 
perance society,  to  learn,  who  of  his  neighbors  are  sober  men,  and 
who  are  drunkards  ? But,  would  not  he  act  as  absurdly,  who 
should  go  to  the  church  records  to  ascertain  who  of  his  neigh- 
bors are  Christians  and  who  are  not?  The  sectaries,  neverthe- 
less, contend,  that  the  visibility  of  the  church  consists  more  de- 
finitely and  more  extensively  than  in  any  thing  else,  in  the 
technical  profession  of  religion,  and  in  the  roll  of  church  names. 
In  neither  of  these,  however,  does  it  consist,  at  all — but,  alone,  in 
the  purity  and  holiness  of  the  church.  A worldly  and  gay  gen- 
tleman once  told  me,  that  Mr. , and  Mr. , were 

his  favorite  ministers.  u Fine  fellows, ” said  he,  u you  might 
be  with  them  a fortnight,  without  once  suspecting  that  they  are 
ministers  !”  The  enrolment  of  their  names,  as  ministers  of  Jesus 
Christ,  could  afford  no  evidence,  that  they  were  such,  whilst 
their  lives  contradicted  it.  This  distinction  of  a visible  and  an 
invisible  earthly  church,  which  is  so  universally  taken,  is  as  per- 
nicious, as  false.  What  is  more  directly  and  powerfully  adapted 
to  lower  the  standard  of  piety,  and,  indeed,  to  efface  all  piety, 
than  the  prevailing  delusion,  that  there  may  be  a church  on 
earth,  which  is  a true  church  of  Jesus  Christ,  and  which,  never- 
theless, has  no  visibility,  unless  it  be  that,  which  is  claimed, 
unjustly  claimed,  for  it,  in  virtue  of  its  forms,  and  records,  and 
rolls  ? An  earthly  church,  which  is  invisible,  is  not  a church  of 
Jesus  Christ.  It  is  recorded  of  the  Saviour,  Mark  vii.  24,  that 
a he  could  not  be  hid.”  No  more  can  the  purity  and  holiness 
of  a church  of  Christ.  His  disciples  are,  as  he  himself  teaches 
—not  are  to  be— but  are , “ the  light  of  the  world  ” and  “ the 
salt  of  the  earth  :”  and,  so  necessarily  conspicuous  is  their 
moral  excellence,  that  he  likens  them  to  the  city,  which  crowns 
a hill,  and  which,  therefore,  cannot  be  hid.  “ Among  whom,” 
says  Paul  to  the  Philippian  church,  “ ye  shine  as  lights  in  the 
world.” 

Ere  closing  my  remarks  under  this  head,  I would  say,  that 
the  New  Testament  makes  no  mention  of  voting  persons  into  its 
churches  ; nor  of  those  churches  having  creeds  in  any  such  sense, 


32 


as  modern  churches  have  creeds.  I need  not  say,  that  the  ban- 
ishment of  human  creeds,  and  the  substitution  of  the  Bible  for 
them,  would  withdraw  from  sectarianism  its  chief  prop.  Men 
will  soon  stop  making-  churches,  and  accept  churches,  as  God 
presents  them,  after  they  have  stopped  making  creeds,  and  taken 
the  Bible  for  their  creed.  Why  should  we  be  content  with  an 
abstract  of  the  Bible  for  our  creed?  and,  this  too,  what  fallible 
men  are  pleased  to  call  an  abstract  of  it?  It  is  in  the  light,  and 
by  the  standard,  of  the  whole  Bible — not  of  a part  of  it — of  a 
divine — not  of  a human  creed — that  we  are  to  judge  ourselves 
and  our  fellow-men.  Again,  a human  creed  we  may  out-grow. 
What  answered  our  convictions,  and  met  our  approbation  a year 
ago,  may  not  now.  But  the  Bible,  we  can  never  out-grow. 
There  can  be  no  increase  of  our  piety,  which  will  rise  above  its 
perfect  holiness.  There  can  be  no  increase  of  our  wisdom,  to 
which  its  infinite  wisdom  cannot  make  additions.  The  Bible 
then — the  whole  Bible — and  nothing  but  the  Bible — should  be 
the  creed  of  every  church.  Dr.  Chalmers  says,  a time  will 
come,  when  u God’s  own  truth,  expressed  in  God’s  own  lan- 
guage, will  form  the  universal  creed  of  intelligent,  and  harmo- 
nized, and  happy  Christendom.  When  men’s  faith  and  their 
affections  will  come  into  more  direct  contact  with  heaven’s 
original  revelation  : and  the  spirit  of  good  will  to  man,  which 
prompted  heaven’s  message,  will  be  felt  in  all  its  freshness  and 
power  : — when  the  uproar  of  controversy  is  stilled,  and  its  harsh 
and  jarring  discords  have  died  away  into  everlasting  silence.” 

But,  again,  the  sectarians  say : u If  we  do  not  have  church 
records  and  rolls  of  church  members,  how  shall  we  be  able  to  pro- 
tect the  Lord’s  table?”  I answer,  that,  even  with  your  records 
and  rolls,  countless  numbers  of  unworthy  ones  come  to  it.  Sup- 
pose, that  I deeply  desire,  that,  persons  guilty  of  Sabbath-break- 
ing, or  rum-drinking;  of  using  profane,  or  obscene  language; 
should  not  visit  my  family.  I go  so  far,  as  to  hang  up,  in  each 
of  the  rooms  of  my  house,  a copy  of  my  printed  testimony 
against  these  sins.  Of  how  little  avail  would  all  this  be  to  keep 
away  the  unwelcome  visiters,  provided  I and  my  family  were 
living  in  the  practice  of  these  same  sins  ! But,  our  exemption 
from  these  sins — our  pure  and  heavenly  walk — how  effectual 
would  not  that  be  ! I know  of  no  protection,  which  a church 


33 


can  give  to  the  Lord’s  table,  other  than  that  of  its  own  holy 
living.  Such  living,  if  it  rise  to  the  gospel  standard,  will,  as  ef- 
fectually, guard  the  Lord’s  table  from  intruders,  as  did  the  flam- 
ing sword  the  gates  of  paradise.  Not  only  is  the  proposition, 
that  light  has  no  affinity  with  darkness,  true  : but  the  converse, 
that  darkness  has  no  affinity  with  light,  is,  also,  true.  The 
atmosphere  of  the  Lord’s  table  would  be  quite  too  heavenly  for 
the  wicked  to  breathe,  were  the  men  and  women,  who  gather 
around  it,  as  holy,  as  they  should  be.  Such  holiness  would  ef- 
fectually repel  the  wicked.  u Resist  the  devil,  and  he  will  flee 
from  you.”  But,  it  is  only  by  holiness,  that  he  can  be  resisted. 

One  means  of  contributing  to  keep  back  impenitent  and  pre- 
sumptuous persons  from  the  Lord’s  table  is  to  invite  to  it,  not 
u those,  who  are  in  good  standing  in  their  respective  churches,” 
but  those,  who  are  conscious,  that  they  love  Jesus  Christ  and  be- 
lieve that  they  are  saved  by  him.  There  is  not  a little  danger, 
that,  under  the  ordinary  form  of  invitation  in  many  of  the 
churches,  the  invited  may  be  emboldened  by  thoughts  of  the 
enrolment  of  their  names  in  the  church  ; of  the  certificates  of 
their  good  standing  in  it ; and  of  their  good  Christian  reputa- 
tion. On  the  other  hand,  the  terms  of  the  invitation,  which  I 
am  commending,  are  happily  and  powerfully  adapted  to  put 
the  invited  upon  the  examination  of  their  hearts.  Alas,  how 
ruinous,  how  wicked,  is  it  to  invite  to  the  Lord’s  table  u all, 
who  are  in  good  standing  in  their  respective  churches  !”  Who 
does  not  know,  that  the  unrighteous,  as  well  as  the  righteous, 
come  within  the  wide  sweep  of  such  invitation? — quite  as 
many  too  of  the  unrighteous,  as  of  the  righteous  ? And  who 
does  not  know,  that  it  is  a high  crime  to  invite  unrighteous 
men  to  the  Lord’s  table  ? How  preposterous,  that  they,  who 
invite  persons  to  the  Lord’s  table,  whom  they  know  to  be  not 
Christians,  should  charge  those  with  leaving  it  unprotected, 
who  invite  to  it  none  but  Christians  ! 

But  the  sectarians  are  not  yet  satisfied  on  this  point.  They 
inquire  : “ And  would  you,  really,  have  all  sorts  of  Christians 
come  to  the  Lord’s  table?”  I answer,  that  we  would — and 
for  the  sufficient  reason,  that  the  Saviour  would.  He  loves  all 
sorts  of  Christians.  Alas,  that  the  Lord’s  supper,  adapted,  far 
above  all  other  ceremonies,  to  promote  the  union  of  Christians, 


34 


should  be  perverted  into  the  chief  occasion  of  dividing  them  ! 
Alas,  that  they,  who  expect  to  unite  in  eating  66  the  same  spirit- 
ual meat”  and  in  drinking  a the  same  spiritual  drink”  in 
heaven,  should  refuse  such  union  on  earth  ! 

Whence,  however,  is  all  this  anxiety  to  protect  the  Lord’s 
church  and  the  Lord’s  table?  He  will  himself  protect  them. 
Let  us  trust  in  him  and  in  the  sufficient  guards,  which  he  has 
placed  around  them.  It  is  not  for  us,  in  our  unbelief  and  offi- 
ciousness, to  multiply  or  change  these  guards.  It  is  not  for  us 
to  mend  God’s  plan.  No  impertinent  and  unbelieving  concern 
for  the  interests  of  the  church  led  Peter  to  deny  to  the  Gentile 
converts  their  right  to  a place  in  it,  and  to  the  benefit  of  its 
institutions.  He  well  knew,  that  the  true  light  had  but  just 
begun  to  scatter  the  great  moral  darkness,  which  enveloped 
them  : and  that,  as  yet,  their  apprehensions  of  Christian  duty 
were  extremely  crude  and  erroneous.  But,  nevertheless,  they 
were  professors  of  the  Christian  faith  (God  had  purified  their 
hearts  by  faith,  Acts  xv.  9 ;)  and,  as  such,  they  had  a full  title 
to  the  Christian  privileges — a title,  which  he  had  no  heart  to 
question — to  question  which,  would,  in  his  esteem,  be  to  u with- 
stand God.”  Peter,  very  probably,  feared,  that  the  Gentiles, 
in  coming  into  the  church,  were  bringing  with  them  pollution, 
discord,  dishonor.  But,  he  saw,  that  God  himself  opened  the 
door  to  them  : and,  therefore,  that  it  was  not  for  man  to  repel 
them.  He  saw,  that  God  was  willing  to  risk  the  safety,  purity, 
and  reputation,  of  his  church,  by  admitting  u unclean”  Gen- 
tiles into  it : and  that  was  reason  enough  with  Peter,  why  he 
also  should  risk  it.  The  manifestation  of  saving  faith,  how- 
ever great  or  numerous  the  errors,  which  accompany  it,  is,  at 
once,  the  proof  of  church-membership,  and  of  an  absolute  title 
to  all  the  rights  of  church-membership.  The  very  chapter, 
from  which  we  have  just  quoted,  teaches  us,  that  there  were 
members  of  the  church  of  Jerusalem  (members  of  the  church, 
because  they  believed,  Acts  xv.  5,)  who  took  the  ground,  u that 
it  was  needful  to  circumcise.”  Theirs  was  a great  error.  Was 
it  not  full  as  great,  as  that,  which  the  Baptist  charges  upon  the 
Psedobaptist  ? — as  that  which  the  Paedobaptist  charges  upon 
the  Baptist?  And,  yet,  great  as  it  was,  even  Apostles  did  not 
deny  the  rights  of  church-membership  to  the  Christians,  who 


35 


were  guilty  of  it.  How  quick  the  light  of  revelation  exposes 
the  falsity  of  sectarianism ! — and  what  a pity,  therefore,  that 
the  sectarians,  instead  of  bringing  forth  their  dirty  idol  into  this 
light,  should  keep  it  in  the  dark  places  of  their  prejudice  and 
bigotry ! 

I will,  now,  glance  at  a few,  though  only  a few,  of  the  bene- 
fits, which  would  result  from  the  universal  abandonment  of 
sectarianism,  and  from  the  universal  adoption  of  the  gospel 
theory  of  church  formation.  The  honest  heart,  however,  sees 
so  much  benefit  in  the  mere  fact  of  obeying  God,  that  it  needs 
no  assurance  of  the  other  benefits  of  such  obedience. 

1st.  Hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars,  now  wasted  annually 
in  the  employment  of  superfluous  preachers,  and  in  the  erection 
of  superfluous  houses  of  worship,  many  of  which  are  as  costly, 
as  the  highest  degree  of  sectarian  rivalry  can  make  them,  would 
then  be  saved  for  heaven-approved  and  earth-blessing  uses. 
But  for  such  rivalry,  there  would  not  be,  in  almost  every  one 
of  our  villages,  several  times  as  many  preachers  and  houses  of 
worship,  as  are  needed.  But  for  it,  there  would  not  be,  in  my 
own  litttle  village  of  sixty  families,  four  preachers  and  four 
places  of  worship.  But  for  this  sectarian  rivalry,  Trinity  church 
in  New-York,  which  cost  several  hundred  thousand  dollars, 
and  St.  Peter’s  in  Rome,  which  cost  millions  of  dollars,  would 
either  not  have  been  built ; or  would  be  such  simple  and  low- 
priced  structures,  as  the  simplicity  and  modesty  of  the  Christian 
religion  call  for. 

2d.  By  far  the  greatest  obstacle  in  the  way  of  promoting 
moral  reforms  will  disappear  with  the  disappearance  of  secta- 
rianism. Men  care  more  for  parties  than  for  truth.  The  esprit 
du  corps  rises  above  the  claims  of  God.  Every  religious  sect, 

WHATEVER  THE  MEASURE  OF  ITS  PURITY  AND  HOLINESS,  IS  A RIVAL 
OF,  RATHER  THAN  IDENTICAL  WITH  CHRISTIANITY.  What  a Strik- 
ing instance  of  this  we  have  in  the  fact,  that  the  General  As- 
sembly of  the  Presbyterian  church  of  this  nation  has,  repeat- 
edly, refused  to  declare  slavery  sin  ! Men  of  controlling  in- 
fluence in  that  body  opposed  the  declaration  ; and  were  frank 
enough  to  oppose  it  on  the  ground,  that  it  would  drive  away 
the  Southern  Presbyterians,  and  destroy  the  nationality  and 
power  of  the  Presbyterian  sect.  The  voice  of  Christianity 


36 


shouted  in  the  ears  of  that  Assembly  : “ Call  slavery  sin — call 
it  sin  ; — if  the  system,  which  forbids  marriage,  and  forbids  the 
reading  of  the  Bible,  and  markets  men  as  beasts,  is  not  sin, 
then  nothing  is  sin,  and  the  religion,  which  you  dishonestly 
profess,  is  a falsehood.”  Sectarianism,  upon  its  knees,  begged 
to  be  spared  : and  it  was  spared.  A tenderer  regard  for  it  than 
for  truth,  spared  sect,  and  sacrificed  Christianity. 

3d.  Christians  would,  then,  labor  effectually  for  the  salvation 
of  their  fellow  men.  Until  they  receive  each  other ; and, 
heartily  and  practically,  recognize  themselves  to  be  u members 
one  of  another,”  they  will  not  be  capable  of  highly  successful 
social  activity  in  the  cause  of  their  Master.  Go  into  a manu- 
factory, and  look  at  one  of  the  operatives — into  a work-shop, 
and  look  at  one  of  the  artizans.  How  comes  it,  that  they  are 
able  to  accomplish  their  work  so  successfully  ? The  secret  of 
the  success  of  each  lies  in  this — that  his  hands  work  in  harmo- 
ny with  each  other — that  his  feet  do  likewise; — that  his  feet 
and  hands  co-operate  ; — and  that  his  handle,  feet,  body,  all,  are 
obedient  to  the  directions  of  his  head.  So  mu  >t  it  be  with  the 
church — such  must  be  the  co-operation  of  the  mystical  body 
and  its  members — ere  the  disciples  of  Jesus  Christ  can  do  what 
they  are  required  to  do,  and  what  they  are  able  to  do,  for  the 
success  of  his  cause. 

4th.  The  abolition  of  sectarianism  would  fulfil  the  Saviour’s 
prayer  for  the  unity  of  the  church — John  xvii.  21.  In  his 
last  hours  on  the  earth,  his  holy  soul  was  absorbed  with  the 
desire,  that  his  disciples  might  “ all  be  one.”  This  oneness 
would,  as  He  himself  teaches,  convince  the  world,  that  he  is 
the  sent  of  God — that  his  religion  is  from  Heaven.  Alas,  that 
this  universal  conviction,  resulting,  as  it  would,  in  universal 
salvation,  should  have  been  withheld  so  long ! Alas,  that 
Christians  should,  by  their  unholy  divisions  and  sectarianism, 
have  hung  so  long,  and,  as  to  countless  generations  of  men, 
so  fatally,  on  the  chariot  wheels  of  salvation ! 

But,  I must  close ; and  return  to  the  bed,  which  I left  for  the 
purpose  of  attending  this  discussion.  That,  under  my  bodily 
infirmities,  I should  have  come  here  to  attend  it,  is  evidence  of 
the  importance  which  I attach  to  it.  I hope,  that  I have  suc- 
ceeded in  making  myself  intelligible.  But,  perhaps,  I have 


37 


not ; — for,  often,  during  the  last  eight  or  ten  years,  when  I have 
seen  how  vain  were  my  endeavors  to  make  men  understand  me 
on  this  subject,  and  be  interested  in  it,  I have  felt,  that,  to 
speak  the  words  of  anti-sectarianism  is  to  speak  in  an  unknown 
tongue.  Sectarianism  is  so  much  a matter  of  course — the  edu- 
cation into  it  is  so  incessant,  and  deep,  and  universal — that  men 
can  hardly  conceive  of  the  possibility,  much  less  understand  the 
merits,  of  “ a more  excellent  way.”  Again,  they  shrink  from 
yielding  themselves  up  to  a catholic  spirit,  lest  they  will  there- 
by have  to  give  up  their  cherished  party  spirit.  Sectarianism 
is  a bewitching  thing ; and  the  hearts  of  men  are  so  bound  up 
in  it,  as  to  give  way  to  the  greatest  alarms,  when  threatened 
with  the  loss  of  it.  To  lose  it,  if  they  could  do  so,  without,  at 
the  same  time,  losing  their  idolatrous  regard  for  it,  would  be  to 
leave  them  to  the  feeling,  that  they  are  poor,  indeed.  Under 
the  pressure  of  this  feeling,  they  would  cry  out,  as  did  the 
snivelling  Micah  to  the  Danites  : u Ye  have  taken  away  my 
gods.” 

Whichever  of  my  deductions  you  may  have  failed  to  per- 
ceive, I most  earnestly  hope,  that  the  following  may  not  have 
escaped  you. 

1st.  The  terms  of  salvation  are  the  terms  of  church 

MEMBERSHIP. 

2d.  The  terms  of  salvation  are  the  terms  of  admittance 
to  the  Lord’s  table. 

3d.  We  are  to  recognize  no  one,  as  a church  member, 
who  does  not  give  us  evidence,  that  he  is  a Christian. 

4th.  We  are  to  recognize  every  one,  as  a church  mem- 
ber, WHO  GIVES  US  EVIDENCE,  THAT  HE  IS  A CHRISTIAN. 

I do  not  expect,  that  sectarianism  will  die  in  a day.  It  is  a 
monster  of  great  age,  and  of  as  great  strength.  It  raised  its 
snaky  head,  even  in  the  presence  of  an  apostle.  6C  Is  Christ 
divided  I”  was  the  terrible  and  triumphant  rebuke  it  then  en- 
countered. It  had  the  effrontery  to  seek  a friendship  with  Jesus 
Christ  himself.  But,  it  was,  instantly,  repelled  by  the  declara- 
tion, that  all,  who  work  in  the  Saviour’s  name,  are  the  Sa- 
viour’s, and  that  all,  who  are  not  against  him,  are  for  him.  In 
the  vastness  of  its  strength,  this  monster  has  been  able  to  set 
church  against  church,  nation  against  nation,  and  the  world 


38 


f 


against  God.  But,  old  as  sectarianism  is,  it  will  not  live  al- 
ways ; and  strong  as  it  is,  it  wilL  not  “ devour  forever.”  For 
a while  longer,  the  spirit  of  sectarianism  will  continue  to  pol- 
lute the  church.  But,  the  Spirit  of  God  will  yet  exorcise  that 
foul  spirit,  and  cleanse  the  church  of  all  the  defilements,  which 
so  unclean  a spirit  leaves  behind  him.  For  a while  longer,  the 
spirit  of  sectarianism  will  maintain  ihose  divisions  in  the  church 
of  Christ,  which  prejudice  the  men  of  this  world  against  the 
truth,  and  put  into  their  hands  the  most  plausible  and  effective 
weapons  against  it.  But,  the  Spirit  of  God  will  yet  drive  out 
this  demon  of  discord  and  division,  and  present  the  church,  in 
all  the  irresistible  might  of  its  oneness  and  indivisibility.  Has- 
ten, O God ! the  day,  which  shall  witness  this  blessed  change 
— this  glory  of  thy  church — this  triumph  of  thy  truth ! 


6, 

■:  :A;. 


:: 


<*#;c 


/ 


/ 


/ 


■ '•- 


/ 

it 

/ 


t 


